Line-to-Line Reaming of Highly Porous Acetabular Components Improves Position and Reduces Variability of Component Placement

Abstract

Accurate and precise acetabular component position in total hip arthroplasty remains challenging even for experienced, high-volume surgeons. Some variability may result from the press-fit technique of cementless components and maybe magnified by the use of highly porous cups with high-friction surfaces. The purpose of this study is to investigate the acetabular component positioning of a hemispherical, highly porous cup with line-to-line reaming compared with press-fit techniques. A retrospective cohort study was performed of 110 consecutive primary total hip arthroplasties performed by a single surgeon using a highly porous acetabular component. Half of the patients had the component implanted with a line-to-line reaming technique and the other half were implanted using a 1 mm press-fit technique. Postoperative radiographs were evaluated for component positioning and loosening at a minimum of 1 year postoperatively by two independent surgeons. Records were reviewed for subsequent surgery. There were no differences between the groups with respect to age, sex, body mass index, operative side, or acetabular component size. The press-fit group had an average abduction angle of 49.4 ± 5° and anteversion of 20.6 ± 7°. The line-to-line group had an average abduction angle of 45.02° [standard deviation (SD) 4.58] and anteversion of 25.42° (SD 4.44) and were statistically different from the press-fit group (p < 0.01). There was significantly less variability in the line-to-line group with respect to anteversion (F-test, p < 0.01) compared with the press-fit group. At most recent follow-up, there were no dislocations, revisions for any reason, or radiographic evidence of loosening in either group. Line-to-line reaming for highly porous cups can improve component positioning and reduce variability compared with press-fit techniques with no difference in fixation or other clinical outcome parameters.

Keywords

hip - arthroplasty - acetabular component - component positioning

• References

• 1 Fear J, Hillman M, Chamberlain MA, Tennant A. Prevalence of hip problems in the population aged 55 years and over: access to specialist care and future demand for hip arthroplasty. Br J Rheumatol 1997; 36 (01) 74-76
• 2 Callanan MC, Jarrett B, Bragdon CR. , et al. The John Charnley Award: risk factors for cup malpositioning: quality improvement through a joint registry at a tertiary hospital. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011; 469 (02) 319-329
• 3 Daines BK, Dennis DA. The importance of acetabular component position in total hip arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am 2012; 43 (05) e23-e34
• 4 Bosker BH, Verheyen CC, Horstmann WG, Tulp NJ. Poor accuracy of freehand cup positioning during total hip arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2007; 127 (05) 375-379
• 5 McLawhorn AS, Sculco PK, Weeks KD, Nam D, Mayman DJ. Targeting a new safe zone: a step in the development of patient-specific component positioning for total hip arthroplasty. Am J Orthop 2015; 44 (06) 270-276
• 6 Biedermann R, Tonin A, Krismer M, Rachbauer F, Eibl G, Stöckl B. Reducing the risk of dislocation after total hip arthroplasty: the effect of orientation of the acetabular component. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2005; 87 (06) 762-769
• 7 Lewinnek GE, Lewis JL, Tarr R, Compere CL, Zimmerman JR. Dislocations after total hip-replacement arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1978; 60 (02) 217-220
• 8 Saxler G, Marx A, Vandevelde D. , et al. The accuracy of free-hand cup positioning--a CT based measurement of cup placement in 105 total hip arthroplasties. Int Orthop 2004; 28 (04) 198-201
• 9 Sporer SM, Paprosky WG. Acetabular revision using a trabecular metal acetabular component for severe acetabular bone loss associated with a pelvic discontinuity. J Arthroplasty 2006; 21 (06) (Suppl. 02) 87-90
• 10 Mayman DJ, Anderson JA, Su EP, Sculco TP. Wear data and clinical results for a compression molded monoblock elliptical acetabular component: 5- to 9-year data. J Arthroplasty 2007; 22 (06) (Suppl. 02) 130-133
• 11 Westacott DJ, McArthur J, King RJ, Foguet P. Assessment of cup orientation in hip resurfacing: a comparison of TraumaCad and computed tomography. J Orthop Surg 2013; 8 (01) 8
• 12 Gruen TA, Poggie RA, Lewallen DG. , et al. Radiographic evaluation of a monoblock acetabular component: a multicenter study with 2- to 5-year results. J Arthroplasty 2005; 20 (03) 369-378
• 13 Bauer TW, Schils J. The pathology of total joint arthroplasty. II. Mechanisms of implant failure. Skeletal Radiol 1999; 28 (09) 483-97
• 14 Hailer NP, Garellick G, Kärrholm J. Uncemented and cemented primary total hip arthroplasty in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop 2010; 81 (01) 34-41
• 15 Domb BG, Redmond JM, Louis SS. , et al. Accuracy of component positioning in 1980 total hip arthroplasties: a comparative analysis by surgical technique and mode of guidance. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30 (12) 2208-2218
• 16 Goldman AH, Armstrong LC, Owen JR, Wayne JS, Jiranek WA. Does increased coefficient of friction of highly porous metal increase initial stability at the acetabular interface?. J Arthroplasty 2016; 31 (03) 721-726
• 17 Leslie IJ, Williams S, Isaac G, Ingham E, Fisher J. High cup angle and microseparation increase the wear of hip surface replacements. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009; 467 (09) 2259-2265
• 18 Kalteis T, Handel M, Herold T, Perlick L, Paetzel C, Grifka J. Position of the acetabular cup -- accuracy of radiographic calculation compared to CT-based measurement. Eur J Radiol 2006; 58 (02) 294-300
• 19 Yoder SA, Brand RA, Pedersen DR, O'Gorman TW. Total hip acetabular component position affects component loosening rates. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1988; (228) 79-87