The Impact of Trabecular Metal on Hip Centre of Rotation in Revision and Complex Primary Hip Arthroplasty, a Radiological Review

Introduction Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a very successful procedure. Revision THA is becoming increasingly common. Recent developments to improve outcomes include the development of large trabecular metal (TM) acetabular cups and augments. There is a paucity of data on the benefit of these new...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Hip international 2017-09, Vol.27 (5), p.500-504
Main Authors: O'Brien, Carl, Keogh, Cillian J., Hannigan, Ailish, Brennan, Stephen, Kennedy, Cian, Gul, Rehan, Harty, James A.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Acetabulum - diagnostic imaging
Acetabulum - surgery
Aged
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip - methods
Cohort Studies
Female
Hip Prosthesis
Humans
Male
Metals
Middle Aged
Prosthesis Design
Radiography - methods
Reoperation
Retrospective Studies
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Introduction Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a very successful procedure. Revision THA is becoming increasingly common. Recent developments to improve outcomes include the development of large trabecular metal (TM) acetabular cups and augments. There is a paucity of data on the benefit of these new techniques. Methods A single-centre retrospective review consisting of a radiological review of post-op revision THA anteroposterior pelvis. Data collection was performed using the Irish National Orthopaedic Register (INOR) and from a previous project. We used a technique developed by Fessy et al in 1999 to measure the centre of rotation (COR) of the hip. We then compared our study to that of a study measuring the COR of healthy native hips. Results 127 revision THA analysed. Native COR calculated by Fessy et al showed a mean horizontal (x) axis 33.6 mm (standard deviation [SD] 5.74) and a vertical (y) axis 16.4 mm (SD 4.67). Non-TM revisions showed a mean x axis of 29 mm (SD 3.9) and y axis 17.9 (SD 5.9). TM Augments had a mean x axis 29.2 mm (SD 7.9) and y axis of 21.5 (SD 8.4). TM Cups alone had a mean x axis 27 mm (SD 6.9) and y axis 22 mm (SD 10.18). Conclusions COR of TM implants showed considerable deviation from the norm. Non-TM implants showed a COR within acceptable physiological range. TM components consistently failed to restore a natural COR in our cohort. The implications of this remain uncertain but must be considered in any decision to use TM.
ISSN:1120-7000
1724-6067
DOI:10.5301/hipint.5000503