Restoration of normal hip biomechanics in arthroplasty surgery is important in order to achieve good muscle function and joint stability.
Methods:
In this retrospective cohort study, we examined the postoperative radiographs of 131 femoral revision arthroplasty procedures using a monoblock, fully hydroxyapatite (HA)-coated titanium stem. Femoral offset, modified-global offset and leg length were measured of the operated and contralateral hips.
Results:
Femoral offset was restored to ±10 mm in 108 cases (82%), modified-global offset was restored ±10 mm in 93 cases (71%) and leg length was restored to ±10 mm in 102 cases (81%). There were 4 dislocations with a mean follow-up period of 38 months.
Conclusions:
Restoration of hip biomechanics is achievable with a monoblock stem and thus is a viable option in revision hip arthroplasty.
KurtzSOngKLauE, et al. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am2007; 89: 780–785
2.
VidalainJPSelmiTABeverlandD, et al. eds. The CORAIL® Hip System: a practical approach based on 25 years of experience. Heidelberg: Springer Berlin, 2011, pp.156–190
3.
CharnleyJ. Low friction arthroplasty of the hip: theory and practice. Heidelberg: Springer Berlin, 1979, pp.3–15.
4.
Al-AmiryBMahmoodSKrupicF, et al. Leg lengthening and femoral-offset reduction after total hip arthroplasty: where is the problem–stem or cup positioning?Acta Radiol2017; 58: 1125–1131.
5.
McGroryBJMorreyBFCahalanTD, et al. Effect of femoral offset on range of motion and abductor muscle strength after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br1995; 77: 865–869.
6.
RöderCVogelRBurriL, et al. Total hip arthroplasty: leg length inequality impairs functional outcomes and patient satisfaction. BMC Musculoskelet Disord2012; 13: 95.
7.
DesaiASDramisABoardTN. Leg length discrepancy after total hip arthroplasty: a review of literature. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med2013; 6: 336–341.
8.
SarialiEKloucheSMouttetA, et al. The effect of femoral offset modification on gait after total hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop2014; 85: 123–127.
9.
LiJMcWilliamsABJinZ, et alUnilateral total hip replacement patients with symptomatic leg length inequality have abnormal hip biomechanics during walking. Clin Biomech (Bristol Avon)2015; 30: 513–519.
10.
MahmoodSSMukkaSSCrnalicS, et al. Association between changes in global femoral offset after total hip arthroplasty and function, quality of life, and abductor muscle strength: a prospective cohort study of 222 patients. Acta Orthop2016; 87: 36–41.
11.
CassidyKANoticewalaMSMacaulayW, et al. Effect of femoral offset on pain and function after total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty2012; 27: 1863–1869.
12.
RenkawitzTWeberTDullienS, et al. Leg length and offset differences above 5 mm after total hip arthroplasty are associated with altered gait kinematics. Gait Posture2016; 49: 196–201.
13.
ShapiraJChenSLRosinskyPJ, et al. The effect of postoperative femoral offset on outcomes after hip arthroplasty: a systematic review. J Orthop2020; 22: 5–11.
14.
SporerSMPaproskyWG. Femoral fixation in the face of considerable bone loss: the use of modular stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res2004; (429): 227–231.
15.
EnghCABobynJDGlassmanAH. Porous-coated hip replacement. The factors governing bone ingrowth, stress shielding, and clinical results. J Bone Joint Surg Br1987; 69: 45–55.
16.
HuangYShaoHZhouY, et al. Femoral bone remodeling in revision total hip arthroplasty with use of modular compared with monoblock tapered fluted titanium stems: the role of stem length and stiffness. J Bone Joint Surg Am2019; 101: 531–538.
17.
KohnMDSassoonAAFernandoND. Classifications in brief: Kellgren-Lawrence classification of osteoarthritis. Clin Orthop Relat Res2016; 474: 1886–1893.
18.
PaproskyWGreidanusNAntoniouJ. Minimum 10-year-results of extensively porous-coated stems in revision hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res1999; (369): 230–242.
19.
SaundersPRShawDASidharthanSK, et al. Survivorship and radiological analysis of a monoblock, hydroxyapatite coated titanium stem in revision hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty2020; 35: 1678–1685.
20.
DawsonJFitzpatrickRCarrA, et al. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br1996; 78: 185–190.
21.
BeardDPalanJAndrewJ, et al. Incidence and effect of leg length discrepancy following total hip arthroplasty. Physiotherapy2008; 94: 91–96.
22.
KrishnanSPMorrisRGarlickN, et al. Common misconceptions of normal hip joint relations on pelvic radiographs. Orthopaedic Proceedings2005; 87-B(SUPP_III): 354.
23.
LecerfGFessyMHPhilippotR, et al. Femoral offset: anatomical concept, definition, assessment, implications for preoperative templating and hip arthroplasty. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res2009: 95: 210–219.
24.
RestrepoCMashadiMParviziJ, et al. Modular femoral stems for revision total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res2011; 469: 476–482.
25.
FlecherXOllivierMArgensonJN. Lower limb length and offset in total hip arthroplasty. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res2016; 102(Suppl.): S9–S20.
26.
Al-AmiryBPantelakisGMahmoodS, et al. Does body mass index affect restoration of femoral offset, leg length and cup positioning after total hip arthroplasty? A prospective cohort study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord2019; 20: 422.
27.
CohnMRTetreaultMWLiJ, et al. Is there a benefit to modularity for femoral revisions when using a splined, tapered titanium stem?J Arthroplasty2020; 35(Suppl.): S278–283.
28.
AlbertonGMHighWAMorreyBF. Dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty: an analysis of risk factors and treatment options. J Bone Joint Surg Am2002; 84: 1788–1792.
29.
WettersNGMurrayTGMoricM, et al. Risk factors for dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res2013; 471: 410–416.
30.
BucklandAJPuvanesarajahVVigdorchikJ, et al. Dislocation of a primary total hip arthroplasty is more common in patients with a lumbar spinal fusion. Bone Joint J2017; 99-B: 585–591.
31.
HoKWWhitwellGSYoungSK. Reducing the rate of early primary hip dislocation by combining a change in surgical technique and an increase in femoral head diameter to 36 mm. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg2012; 132: 1031–1036.
32.
RobinsonMBornsteinLMennearB, et al. Effect of restoration of combined offset on stability of large head THA. Hip Int2012; 22: 248–253.
33.
ParviziJSharkeyPFBissettGA, et al. Surgical treatment of limb-length discrepancy following total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am2003; 85: 2310–2317.
34.
KonyvesABannisterGC. The importance of leg length discrepancy after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br1999; 87: 155–157.
35.
LübbekeAMoonsKGGaravagliaG, et al. Outcomes of obese and nonobese patients undergoing revision total hip arthroplasty. Arthritis Rheum2008; 9: 738–745.
36.
RowanFEBenjaminBPietrakJR, et al. Prevention of dislocation after total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty2018; 33: 1316–1324.
37.
MüllerMAbdelMPWassilewGI, et al. Do post-operative changes of neck–shaft angle and femoral component anteversion have an effect on clinical outcome following uncemented total hip arthroplasty?Bone Joint J2015; 97-B: 1615–1622.
38.
SpaldingTJ. Effect of femoral offset on motion and abductor muscle strength after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br1996; 78: 997–998.
39.
InnmannMMMaierMWStreitMR, et al. Additive influence of hip offset and leg length reconstruction on postoperative improvement in clinical outcome after total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty2018; 33: 156–161.
40.
ClementNDPatrick-PatelRSMacDonaldD, et al. Total hip replacement: increasing femoral offset improves functional outcome. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg2016; 136: 1317–1323.
