A New Method to Predict Postoperative Stem Anteversion in Total Hip Arthroplasty for Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip

Abstract

Background: Preoperative evaluation of femoral anteversion to predict postoperative stem anteversion aids the selection of an appropriate prosthesis and optimizes the combined anteversion in total hip arthroplasty (THA) for developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH). The conventional prediction methods are based on the femoral anteversion measurement at the location of the femoral head and/or neck. However, varied differences between femoral anteversion and postoperative stem anteversion were demonstrated. This study investigated the predictive role of a new method based on the principle of sagittal three-point fixation.

Methods: From January 2017 to December 2018, a total of 133 DDH hips that underwent THA were retrospectively analyzed. There were 76 Crowe type I, 27 type II, and 30 type III hips. The single-wedge stem was used in 49 hips, and the double-wedge stem was used in 84 hips. Preoperative native femoral anteversion at the femoral head–neck junction, anterior cortex anteversion at 2 levels of the lesser trochanter, posterior cortex anteversion at 5 levels of the femoral neck, and postoperative stem anteversion were measured using two-dimensional computed tomography. Predictive anteversion by the new method was calculated as the average anteversion formed by the anterior cortex at the lesser trochanter and the posterior cortex at the femoral neck.

Results: For hips with different neck heights, different Crowe types, different stem types, or different femoral anteversions, native femoral anteversion showed widely varied differences and correlations with stem anteversion, with differences ranging from −1.27 ± 8.33° to −13.67 ± 9.47° and correlations ranging from 0.122 (p = 0.705, no correlation) to 0.813. Predictive anteversion formed by the anterior cortex at the lesser trochanter proximal base and posterior cortex 10 mm above the lesser trochanter proximal base showed no significant difference with stem anteversion, with less varied differences (0.92 ± 7.52°) and good to excellent correlations (r = 0.826).

Conclusion: Adopting our new method, predictive anteversion, measured as the average anteversion of the anterior cortex at the lesser trochanter proximal base and posterior cortex 10 mm above the lesser trochanter proximal base, predicted postoperative stem anteversion more reliably than native femoral anteversion.

Keywords

Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip / Femoral Anteversion / Stem Anteversion / Total Hip Arthroplasty

References

[1] FergusonRJ, PalmerAJR, TaylorA, Porter ML, MalchauH, Glyn-JonesS. Hip replacement. Lancet. 2018;392:1662–1671.

[2] GreberEM, PeltCE, GilillandJM, Anderson MB, EricksonJA, PetersCL. Challenges in total hip arthroplasty in the setting of developmental dysplasia of the hip. J Arthroplasty. 2017;32:S38–S44.

[3] PerryKI, BerryDJ. Femoral considerations for total hip replacement in hip dysplasia. Orthop Clin North Am. 2012;43:377–386.

[4] ZhangJ, WangL, MaoY, LiH, DingH, Zhu Z. The use of combined anteversion in total hip arthroplasty for patients with developmental dysplasia of the hip. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29:621–625.

[5] DorrLD, Zhinian W, AamerM, JinjunZ, ManishD, PrashantD. A comparison of surgeon estimation and computed tomographic measurement of femoral component anteversion in cementless total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91:2598–2604.

[6] BotserIB, OzoudeGC, MartinDE, Siddiqi AJ, KuppuswamiS, DombBG. Femoral anteversion in the hip: comparison of measurement by computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and physical examination. Art Ther. 2012;28:619–627.

[7] AbeH, SakaiT, TakaoM, Nishii T, NakamuraN, SuganoN. Difference in stem alignment between the direct anterior approach and the posterolateral approach in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2015;30:1761–1766.

[8] GeorgiadisAG, SiegalDS, ScherCE, Zaltz I. Can femoral rotation be localized and quantified using standard CT measures? Clin Orthop Rel Res. 2015;473:1309–1314.

[9] SuganoN, NoblePC, KamaricE. A comparison of alternative methods of measuring femoral anteversion. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1998;22:610–614.

[10] SuhKT, KangJH, RohHL, Moon KP, KimHJ. True femoral anteversion during primary total hip arthroplasty: use of postoperative computed tomography-based sections. J Arthroplasty. 2006;21:599–605.

[11] TaniguchiN, JinnoT, KogaD, Hagino T, OkawaA, HaroH. Cementless hip stem anteversion in the dysplastic hip: a comparison of tapered wedge vs metaphyseal filling. J Arthroplasty. 2016;32:1547–1552.

[12] HirataM, Nakashima Y, ItokawaT, OhishiM, SatoT, AkiyamaM, et al. Influencing factors for the increased stem version compared to the native femur in cementless total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop. 2014;38:1341–1346.

[13] Kwan KyuP, Tsung-Yuan T, DimitrisD, Young-MinK. Utility of preoperative femoral neck geometry in predicting femoral stem anteversion. J Arthroplasty. 2015;30:1079–1084.

[14] NakashimaY, HirataM, AkiyamaM, Itokawa T, YamamotoT, MotomuraG, et al. Combined anteversion technique reduced the dislocation in cementless total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop. 2014;38:27–32.

[15] WorlicekM, WeberM, CraiovanB, Wörner M, VöllnerF, SpringorumHR, et al. Native femoral anteversion should not be used as reference in cementless total hip arthroplasty with a straight, tapered stem: a retrospective clinical study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2016;17:399.

[16] BourneRB, Rorabeck CH. A critical look at cementless stems. Taper designs and when to use alternatives. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998;355:212–223.

[17] DorrLD, MalikA, DastaneM, Wan Z. Combined anteversion technique for total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Rel Res. 2009;467:119–127.

[18] ZhangJ, WeiJ, MaoY, LiH, XieY, ZhuZ. Range of hip joint motion in developmental dysplasia of the hip patients following total hip arthroplasty with the surgical technique using the concept of combined anteversion: a study of Crowe I and II patients. J Arthroplasty. 2015;30:2248–2255.

[19] YuDG, ZhangJW, XuC, XuJW, LiHW, ZhuZA, et al. Changes in alignment of ipsilateral knee on computed tomography after total hip arthroplasty for developmental dysplasia of the hip. Orthop Surg. 2019;11:397–404.

[20] DimitriouD, TsaiTY, KwonYM. The effect of femoral neck osteotomy on femoral component position of a primary cementless total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop. 2015;39:2315–2321.

[21] WorlicekM, WeberM, WörnerM, SchwarzT, ZemanF, GrifkaJ, et al. The final implant position of a commonly used collarless straight tapered stem design (Corail®) does not correlate with femoral neck resection height in cement-free total hip arthroplasty: a retrospective computed tomography analysis. J Orthop Traumatol. 2018;19:20.

[22] RozisM, Bakalakos M, PolyzoisVD, VlamisJ, Pneumaticos S. Femoral stem sagittal balance – do we need a new entry point? J Res Pract Musculoskelet Syst. 2018;2:39–45.

[23] KhanujaHS, VakilJJ, GoddardMS, Mont MA. Cementless femoral fixation in total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93:500–509.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2024 2024 The Authors. Orthopaedic Surgery published by Tianjin Hospital and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.