Ideal Femoral Head Size in Total Hip Arthroplasty Balances Stability and Volumetric Wear
- 432 Downloads
Over the last several years, a trend towards increasing femoral head size in total hip arthroplasty to improve stability and impingement free range of motion has been observed.
The specific questions we sought to answer in our review were: (1) What are the potential advantages and disadvantages of metal-on-metal, ceramic-on-ceramic, and metal-on-polyethylene bearings? (2) What is effect that femoral head size has on joint kinematics? (3) What is the effect that large femoral heads have on bearing surface wear?
A PubMed search and a review of 2012 Orthopaedic Research Society abstracts was performed and articles were chosen that directly answered components of the specific aims and that reported outcomes with contemporary implant designs or materials.
A review of the literature suggests that increasing femoral head size decreases the risk of postoperative dislocation and improves impingement free range of motion; however, volumetric wear increases with large femoral heads on polyethylene and increases corrosion of the stem in large metal-on-metal modular total hip arthroplasty (THA); however, the risk of potentially developing osteolysis or adverse reactions to metal debris respectively is still unknown. Further, the effect of large femoral heads with ceramic-on-ceramic THA is unclear, due to limited availability and published data.
Surgeons must balance the benefits of larger head size with the increased risk of volumetric wear when determining the appropriate head size for a given patient.
Keywordsfemoral head size total hip arthroplasty volumetric wear large femoral heads dislocation
- 1.Ali Khan MA, Brakenbury PH, Reynolds IS. Dislocation following total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 1981;63-B:214–18.Google Scholar
- 5.Bartz RL, Noble PC, Kadakia NR, Tullos HS. The effect of femoral component head size on posterior dislocation of the artificial hip joint. J Bone Joint Surg [Am]. 2000;82-A:1300–7.Google Scholar
- 6.Beaulé PE, Schmalzried TP, Udomkiat P, Amstutz HC. Jumbo femoral head for the treatment of recurrent dislocation following total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 2002;84-A:256–63.Google Scholar
- 9.Chandler DR, Glousman R, Hull D, et al. Prosthetic hip range of motion and impingement: the effects of head and neck geometry. Clin Orthop Rel Res. 1982;166:284–91.Google Scholar
- 16.Dyrkacz RMR, Turgeon T, Ojo O, Brandt JM, Wyss U. Head size affects corrosion behavior in artificial hip joints. Transactions of the 2012 Orthopaedic Research Society.Google Scholar
- 17.Evans P, Lipman J, Rajadhyaksha A, Westrich G. Evaluating the effect of head size and implant design on range of motion in total hip arthroplasty utilizing computerized virtual surgery. Unpublished data from Hospital for Special Surgery.Google Scholar
- 19.Glyn-Jones S, Pandit H, Kwon YM, Doll H, Gill HS. Risk factors for inflammatory pseudotumour formation following hip resurfacing. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 2009;91(12):1566–1574.Google Scholar
- 20.He RX, Yan SG, Wu LD, Wang XH, Dai XS. Position of the prosthesis and the incidence of dislocation following total hip replacement. Chin Med J (Engl) 2007;120:1140–4.Google Scholar
- 24.Jameson SS, Lees D, James P, Serrano-Pedraza I, Partington PF, Muller SD, Meek RM, Reed MR. Lower rates of dislocation with increased femoral head size after primary total hip replacement: a five-year analysis of NHS patients in England. J Bone Joint Surg [Br]. 2011;93(7):876–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Johnston RC, Smidt GL. Hip motion measurements for selected activities of daily living. Clin Orthop Rel Res. 1970;72:205–15.Google Scholar
- 35.Sochart D. Relationship of acetabular wear to osteolysis around total hip components inserted with and without cement. Clin Orthop Rel Res. 1999;363:135.Google Scholar