Is the Iliac Wing Curved Inward in Patients with Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip?

BackgroundThere is a paucity of studies on the iliac curvature in developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH). Here, we examined the iliac curvature in DDH using three-dimensional computed tomography.MethodsWe allocated cases with a center-edge angle of < 20° to the DDH group (55 cases) and cases with a center-edge angle of > 25° to the control group (57 cases) and measured the straight line (line A) between the anterior and posterior superior iliac spines. We examined which part of the iliac bone line A passes through and classified the results into 4 categories (type A, inside the iliac bone; type B, through the iliac bone; type C, outside the iliac bone; and type D, both inside and outside the iliac bone) to evaluate the iliac wing curvature. After measuring the area and internal surface of the iliac wing using line A, we examined the correlation between these values, the interspinous distance, the superior iliac angle, and the center-edge angle.ResultsDistributions of the four types were compared between the two groups; there was no significant difference. The length of the portion of line A inside the ilium and the area formed by line A and the iliac wing, which shows the degree of iliac wing curvature, were not significantly different between the groups. There were no correlations between these values and the center-edge angle; however, there were weak positive correlations among the interspinous distance, the superior iliac angle, and the center-edge angle.ConclusionsThe inward nature of the iliac bone in patients with DDH is mainly due to the internal rotation of the entire iliac bone and less likely due to the curvature of the iliac bone.     

Leg-Length Discrepancy After Revision Hip Arthroplasty: Are Modular Stems Superior?

We retrospectively reviewed data for 79 consecutive patients who underwent revision hip arthroplasty using cementless femoral stems at our center between September 2008 and November 2010. Two cohorts were included, one using MP (modular) femoral stems and the other using Wagner (monoblock) femoral stems. We assessed leg-length discrepancy (LLD) before and after revision and compared the occurrence of leg-length inequality between the 2 cohorts. We found that the incidence of LLD was high in revision hip arthroplasty and that leg shortening was more common than lengthening. Both acetabular and femoral sides contributed to postoperative LLD. Appropriate placement of the femoral components was most critical in adjusting LLD. We also found that compared with monoblock stems, modular stems made adjustment of postoperative leg length easier.     

Lateral Center-edge Angle of 18° (Bone-Edge): Threshold for Hip Arthroscopy Treatment in Patients with Borderline Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip?

Objective

Hip arthroscopy for the treatment of symptomatic borderline developmental dysplasia of the hip (BDDH) has been controversial. The purpose of this study was to retrospectively analyze minimum 2-year outcomes of BDDH after arthroscopic surgery and explore the criteria and thresholds of the lateral center-edge angle (LCEA) in arthroscopic surgery for BDDH.

Methods

Data were retrospectively collected from patients aged 18–50 who underwent arthroscopic surgery for BDDH and had an LCEA 18–25° between September 2016 and June 2020. The consistency of interobserver and intraobserver measurements of bone-edge LCEA was analyzed. Patients were divided into two groups based on LCEA (18–20°and 20–25°) and the results of arthroscopy compared between groups. Patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores, consisting of the modified Harris hip score (mHHS), the visual analogue scale (VAS) and the international hip outcome tool-12 (IHOT-12), the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and patient acceptable symptom status (PASS) were calculated.

Results

In 52 patients with ≥2-year follow-up, female patients accounted for 71.2% and the mean age was 30.8 ± 8.4 years (range: 18 to 49 years). There was a high level of agreement when measuring the bone-edge LCEA definition of BDDH (Kappa = 0.921). Interobserver repeatability (ICC = 0.909, 95%CI: 0.847–0.947) and intraobserver repeatability (ICC = 0.944, 95%CI: 0.905–0.968) were excellent for bone-edge LCEA measurements. In addition to LCEA and Tönnis angle, there were no significant differences in α angle, neck stem angle, femoral anteversion angle, medial joint space, Tönnis grade of osteoarthritis, acetabular retroversion (8 sign), Cam deformity and anterior inferior iliac spine (AIIS) morphology between the two groups (p > 0.05). Intraoperative findings and procedures showed no statistical difference between groups (p > 0.05). The mean follow-up time was 44.4 ± 11.0 months (range: 25 to 64 months). Postoperative VAS, mHHS and IHOT-12 scores in the LCEA 18–20° group and the LCEA 20–25° group were significantly improved compared with those before surgery, and there was no statistically significant difference in the percentage of MCID and PASS (mHHS and iHOT-12) between the groups (p > 0.05).

Conclusion

Patients in the LCEA 18–20° group and the LCEA 20–25° group achieved favorable outcomes after arthroscopic surgery. LCEA 18° (bone-edge) should be the threshold for hip arthroscopic surgery in BDDH patients without obvious hip instability.     

Does Cup Position at the High Hip Center or Anatomic Hip Center in THA for Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip Result in Better Harris Hip Scores and Revision Incidence? A Systematic Review

BackgroundOne goal of THA is to restore the anatomic hip center, which can be achieved in hips with developmental dysplasia by placing cups at the level of the native acetabulum. However, this might require adjuvant procedures such as femoral shortening osteotomy. Another option is to place the cup at the high hip center, potentially reducing surgical complexity. Currently, no clear consensus exists regarding which of these cup positions might offer better functional outcomes or long-term survival.Question/purposeWe performed a systematic review to determine whether (1) functional outcomes as measured by the Harris hip score, (2) revision incidence, and (3) complications that do not result in revision differ based on the position of the acetabular cup (high hip center versus anatomic hip center) in patients undergoing THA for developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH).MethodsWe performed a systematic review using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, including studies comparing the functional outcomes, revision incidence, and complications of primary THA in dysplastic hips with acetabular cups placed at the high hip center versus those placed at the anatomic hip center, over any time frame. The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (registration number CRD42020168183) before commencement. Of 238 records, eight comparative, retrospective nonrandomized studies of interventions were eligible for our systematic review, reporting on 207 hips with cups placed at the high hip center and 268 hips with cups at the anatomic hip center. Risk of bias within eligible studies was assessed using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions tool. Due to low comparability between studies, data could not be pooled, so these studies were assessed without summary effects.ResultsSix studies compared Harris hip scores, two of which favored high hip center cup placement and three of which favored anatomic hip center cup placement, although none of the differences between cohorts met the minimum clinically important difference. Five studies reliably compared revision incidence, which ranged from 2% to 9% for high hip center at 7 to 15 years and 0% to 5.9% for anatomic hip center at 6 to 16 years. Five studies reported intra- and postoperative complications, with the high hip center being associated with higher incidence of dislocation and lower incidence of neurological complications. No clear difference was observed in intraoperative complications between the high hip center and anatomic hip center.ConclusionNo obvious differences could be observed in Harris hip score or revision incidence after THA for osteoarthritis secondary to DDH between cups placed at the anatomic hip center and those placed at the high hip center. Placement of the acetabular cup in the high hip center may lead to higher risk of dislocation but lower risk of neurologic complications, although no difference in intraoperative complications was observed. Surgeons should be able to achieve satisfactory functional scores and revision incidence using either technique, although they should be aware of how their choice influences hip biomechanics and the need for adjunct procedures and associated risks and operative time. These recommendations should be considered with respect to the several limitations in the studies reviewed, including the presence of serious confounding factors and selection biases, inconsistent definitions of the high hip center, variations in dysplasia severity, small sample sizes, and follow-up periods. These weaknesses should be addressed in well-designed future studies.Level of EvidenceLevel III, therapeutic study.     

Editorial Commentary: Cartilage Damage in the Hip: Can We Predict Outcome?

Cartilage damage is frequently seen during hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement or trauma. Currently, microfracture is the most common procedure for treating severe chondral defects. Studies have suggested that the presence of acetabular cartilage lesions can cause poor outcomes. Defects of the femoral head are seen less frequently, and less research exists on how these lesions contribute to outcomes. Although the presence of cartilage damage may be a predictor of poorer outcomes, one must also consider the treatment and postoperative rehabilitation as the main factors in outcomes.     

Modular Fluted Tapered Stems in Aseptic Oncologic Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Game Changer?

BackgroundModular fluted tapered (MFT) stems are the most frequently used femoral component in revision total hip arthroplasties (THAs). Despite this, no data are available on how they perform in revision THA for oncologic salvage. This is a unique population, often with severe bone loss and prior radiation that extends the limits of uncemented femoral reconstruction. The aims of this study were to evaluate the implant survivorship, radiographic results, and clinical outcomes of MFT stems used for revision oncologic salvage.MethodsWe identified 17 patients treated initially with primary THA for an oncologic diagnosis (15 primary oncologic, 2 metastatic disease) who underwent subsequent femoral revision with an MFT stem. Mean age at revision was 66 years and 35% of patients were female. Mean follow-up was 4 years. Before revision, 5 of 17 had undergone local radiation.ResultsTen-year survivorship free from aseptic loosening was 100%. The survivorship free of any reoperation was 76%. There were no femoral component fractures. Three patients were revised for recurrent instability, and 1 patient underwent irrigation and debridement for an acute infection. At most recent follow-up, no patient had radiographic evidence of progressive femoral component subsidence or failure of osteointegration. The mean Harris Hip Score improved from 29 preoperatively to 76 postoperatively (P < .0001).ConclusionIn this series of patients with cancer, many of whom had severe bone loss and/or prior local radiation, being treated with revision THA, there were no revisions for femoral component loosening and no cases of implant fracture.Level of EvidenceIII.     

Can Computed Tomography Predict Hip Stability in Posterior Wall Acetabular Fractures?

Background  

In a pilot study, two-dimensional (2-D) CT assessment of posterior wall fracture fragments predicted hip stability with small fracture fragments and instability for large fracture fragments.