• Users Online: 22
  • Print this page
  • Email this page


 
 
Table of Contents
REVIEW ARTICLE
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 19  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 73-76

Challenges in primary hip arthroplasty for neglected post-traumatic hip dislocations with acetabular defect


1 Department of Orthopedic and Trauma Surgery Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Kaduna State, Nigeria
2 Department of Surgery, AKTH, Kano, Nigeria

Date of Submission13-Jun-2020
Date of Acceptance24-Aug-2020
Date of Web Publication15-Dec-2020

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Mohammed Inuwa Maitama
Department of Trauma and Orthopedic Surgery, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Kaduna State
Nigeria
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/njot.njot_21_20

Get Permissions

  Abstract 


Primary hip arthroplasty in the presence of acetabular defect seen in patients with neglected post-traumatic hip dislocation is quite challenging due to the need in securing stability of hemispherical cup and providing enough rigid fixation needed to prevent acetabular cup micromotion. In segmental acetabular defect, contained or uncontained, there is an acetabular rim violation, an important risk factor for cup micromotion, loosening in the long term and subsequent failure. In our environment, most of the patients with post-traumatic hip dislocation present late, making conservative management (closed reduction and traction) or primary acetabular restorative reconstruction very difficult, hence the surgeon is left with the option of either Girdlestone excision arthroplasty, arthrodesis, hemiarthroplasty or total hip replacement. For the few who present early, most of them may not afford the cost of surgery (total hip replacement) and majority of centres in developing countries do not have facilities and trained personnel to handle such complex procedures. Impaction of cancellous bone graft to the acetabular defect is a common practice among arthroplasty surgeons. This, however, does not guarantee bony ingrowth at cup/graft interface and initial rigid fixation. The resultant acetabular cup micromotion on commencing weight-bearing would affect biologic fixation and may explain the relatively high incidence of loosening in this category. It is with this background that we review this important topic in hip arthroplasty highlighting various options of treatments, outcomes and recommendations.

Keywords: Acetabular defect, challenges, post-traumatic hip dislocation, primary hip arthroplasty


How to cite this article:
Maitama MI, Lawal YZ, Ejagwulu FS, Kabir AM, Ismaila LD. Challenges in primary hip arthroplasty for neglected post-traumatic hip dislocations with acetabular defect. Niger J Orthop Trauma 2020;19:73-6

How to cite this URL:
Maitama MI, Lawal YZ, Ejagwulu FS, Kabir AM, Ismaila LD. Challenges in primary hip arthroplasty for neglected post-traumatic hip dislocations with acetabular defect. Niger J Orthop Trauma [serial online] 2020 [cited 2021 Jan 21];19:73-6. Available from: https://www.njotonline.org/text.asp?2020/19/2/73/303432




  Introduction Top


Total hip arthroplasty is now a well-established method of treating various end-stage hip disorders. Primary hip arthroplasty for neglected hip dislocation with acetabular defect is technically demanding to perform. This is due to anatomical distortions that make access to acetabulum and femoral head difficult, coupled with possibility of utilising custom-made implants such as acetabular augments and cages depending on the extent and pattern of the bone defect. Availability and additional cost of these expensive implants, surgeon's training and wherewithal to handle such complex procedures is another important consideration. There is also a challenge of achieving mechanically sound rigid acetabular cup fixation, an important factor for bony ingrowth to non-cemented hydroxyapatite or trabecular metal (TM) surfaces providing biologic fixation. The presence of micromotion will certainly lead to early loosening and subsequent failure. The merits and demerits of non-cemented versus cemented, hybrid and reverse hybrid fixations have also been taken into consideration so as to help in deciding the best choice of fixation with respect to the age of patient and background pathology.


  Patient Evaluation Top


Majority of patients with post-traumatic hip dislocation are usually involved in dashboard injuries and present to the hospital late due to initial patronage of traditional bonesetters. For those who present early, standard protocol of management is commenced immediately, including resuscitation, detailed history taking, complete physical examination, radiological and other supportive investigations. Closed reduction is attempted and, if successful, maintained by skeletal traction application for 4–6 weeks, followed by gradual mobilisation and physiotherapy.

For patients who come to the hospital late, 3 months or more after injury, they usually present with complaints of hip pain, difficulty in walking, loss of hip abduction and limb shortening on the affected side that is also flexed and adducted, classic for posterior hip dislocation or abducted and externally rotated in the rare anterior type. Standard plain radiographs and three-dimensional computed tomography reconstruction, where available, confirm the clinical diagnosis of post-traumatic hip dislocation that may be associated with acetabular fracture. The extent of injury in terms of greater trochanteric superior migration, associated femoral head fracture, pattern and extent of acetabular bone loss and preservation of medial plate bone are carefully evaluated. Such patients are offered primary total hip arthroplasty, but a number of them will consent to have Girdlestone excision arthroplasty as a salvage due to issues with affordability. For the few who could afford the procedure, they are further evaluated, optimised for surgery and informed consent obtained, highlighting the possibility of sciatic nerve damage, infection, haemorrhage, limb length inequality, component dislocation and loosening.


  Challenges in Surgical Technique Top


Difficulties encountered are due to superior migration of femoral head with adhesions to the pelvic wall and soft-tissue contractures making it difficult to bring it down to its normal anatomy during reduction after component placement. This is usually encountered in patients with long-standing dislocation who spent years bearing weight on the pathologic hip. Some authors will undertake the surgery as a staged procedure by initial open exploration, soft-tissue release, followed by total hip arthroplasty after 3–6 weeks of skeletal traction.[1] Others will offer subtrochanteric shortening step-cut osteotomy and effect reduction at primary sitting.[2] In the course of soft-tissue release muscle, attachments to greater trochanter may be avulsed risking damage to abductor mechanism. Due to fibrosis, anatomical distortion and myositis ossificans sciatic nerve may be damaged during exploration and femoral head resection. Equally challenging is acetabular identification that is usually filled with osseofibrous tissues, and in the course of defining it, there may be extensive soft-tissue dissection and bleeding. Due to non-weight transmission in long-standing cases, the acetabulum is usually osteoporotic, an important consideration during reaming so as not to overream to perforation. The presence of posterior defect in the acetabulum may lead to erroneous decrease in anteversion by inexperienced surgeons during acetabular reaming and cup placement all in an attempt to achieve more containment, as the more the anteversion position, the more the cup is likely to be exposed by the defect posteriorly. This may lead to incorrect cup placement (decreased anteversion, neutral or retroversion) risking post-operative dislocation. Some surgeons in order to overcome this will prefer using small acetabular cup in high hip centre position so as to have more containment, but this is not advised as it may be associated with post-operative limb length inequality and subsequent early failure. Some patients may present with shallow dysplastic acetabulum seen in neglected adolescent traumatic dislocations due to acetabular mal development. In such cases, placing the hemispherical cup in the dysplastic acetabulum may likely be lateral to the true anatomic hip center of rotation, therefore attempt should be made to medialize it for its correct positioning. where available, complement of image intensifier may assist surgeon to achieve best balance between under reaming with incorrect cup positioning on one hand, and over reaming to medial wall perforation and/ or medial plate bone fracture during cup impaction on the other hand.


  Discussion Top


The principles governing the management of primary total hip arthroplasty in the presence of acetabular defect, segmental or cavitary and revision hip arthroplasty are essentially the same due to the likely presence of a common denominator that is acetabular bone loss. Primary total hip arthroplasty in the presence of acetabular bone defect is truly challenging to the arthroplasty surgeon due to the need for providing initial rigid mechanical stabilization that should withstand the routine biomechanical loading of components in all the axes within the physiologic ranges of hip motion. This is usually achievable in primary setting either by filling the defect using bone graft, bone cement, porous metal wedges as acetabular augments with regular or customised acetabular cups, acetabular cages and reinforcement rings.

For cavitary defect, as seen in neglected central hip dislocation with both column's acetabular fracture and secondary congruence, packing the defect with morselized and/or structural autograft is usually adequate in restoring the medialized hip centre of rotation and preventing cup migration into the pelvis by the process of revascularisation, incorporation and subsequent ossification to form the medial plate bone. Sometimes, anti-protrusio cages, cup-cage constructs or reinforcement rings are used to protect these grafts before the healing process is completed.[3],[4] Slooff et al.[5] have used both bone cement and bone graft in revision setting for cavitary bone loss with good result. The main drawbacks of acetabular cages are: they are usually designed with non-biologic surfaces because they are meant to be flexible to accommodate different pelvic shapes, so being just a mechanically supportive metal, it may be subjected to long-term fatigue failure. Being bulky, extensive dissection, risking soft-tissue devascularisation, may occasionally have to be undertaken for its proper placement.

In segmental bone loss, however, the rationale of using bone graft to fill the acetabular defect, which is common practice, needs to be critically looked at. This is due to the fact that uncemented porous-coated acetabular cups are not expected to gain bone ingrowth and subsequent long-term stability from areas in which they are exclusively in contact with bone grafts (two dead surfaces cannot anchor a living process). Rather, in these areas, a fibrous membrane between the graft and uncemented implant usually forms[6] which will not be expected to provide long-term implant fixation reliably. van Haaren et al. have already reported a high failure rate of impaction grafting in large acetabular defects.[7] These grafts are sometimes at risk for fracture or collapse from fatigue failure, just like any other dead bone or occasionally may be resorbed putting the implant at risk of loosening and/or migration. Zahar et al.[8] have reported a high loosening rate in primary total hip arthroplasty, even though among patients with developmental dysplasia of the hip, using bulk autograft at mid-term follow-up. Shinar and Harris[9] have reported an acetabular failure rate of 60% at 12.5 years for the primary total hip arthroplasties reconstructed with bulk autograft and went on to conclude that the main parameter associated with failure was the extent of cup-to-graft coverage. When more than 30% of the superior aspect of the cup was supported by graft, there was a significantly higher risk of failure. Long-term results have shown unacceptably high loosening rates of the acetabular component with structural autografting or allografting.[10],[11],[12],[13],[14] Despite its widespread use and the favourable outcome reported by some authors, much is still not known about the biological fate of these bone grafts due to scanty data of long-term autopsy retrievals.

Before the advent of the concept of biologic fixation of cementless acetabular and femoral components by process of bony ingrowth on to hydroxyapatite or TM acetabular cups, acrylic bone cement was generally used with or without additional bone graft to provide skeletal fixation. However, due to moderate-to-high failure rate at long-term outcome,[15],[16],[17],[18],[19],[20] acrylic bone cement is not usually the surgeon's first choice in providing skeletal fixation, particularly in younger active population except in selected difficult primaries and revision procedures. Even then, some surgeons still report a longer survival rate of non-cemented than cemented cups in revision setting.[21],[22] Despite the improved cementing technique, it only showed to decrease the rate of cemented femoral stem loosening not the cemented acetabular component which remains unchanged.[23] It is generally agreed that biologic fixation tends to give better to excellent long-term outcome in primary arthroplasty than cemented procedure,[24] particularly in young active population.[25] Biologic fixation, however, depends on several variables for it to be effective. These include quality of host bone (i.e., osteoporosis), age and general health of the patient, effective clearance of acetabular cartilage, adequate impaction (press-fit) and close contact of metallic cup with the host bone cavity, containment of the hemispherical cup and percentage coverage by the acetabular anatomy, initial rigid mechanical cup stability, presence or absence of micromotion, presence or absence of bioactive coatings i.e., plasma spray, onto the porous cup surfaces and quality standards of these implants by manufacturing companies. Not surprising, therefore, that uncemented hip arthroplasty may be associated with high failure rate due to loosening in elderly population as reported by some authors.[25],[26] Longer survivorship of cemented over non-cemented fixation in elderly patients 65 years and above was reported by Mäkelä et al.[27] using both Kaplan–Meier and multivariate Cox regression analyses adjusted for age, sex and diagnosis at various age groups using revision for any reason as end point.

Oblong- or bilobed-shaped cups are non-hemispherical components that have been available from several manufacturers designed mostly to deal with large segmental defects. However, these implants are expensive and difficult to use by most surgeons because of their complex geometry.

The presence of micromotion has been shown to significantly affect the rate of bony ingrowth[28],[29] and subsequent biologic fixation unto hydroxyapatite or TM porous surfaces.[30] Using finite element analysis, it has been demonstrated that fixing one dome screw does not offer the stability of a hemispherical prosthetic cup that was not press fitted and two dome screws do not prevent micromotion at the pubis or ischium significantly.[31] This is more pronounced in the presence of posterior superior acetabular rim defect even if contained. Some authors, in assessing the demographic and disease-specific factors at primary surgery that may have influenced acetabular and femoral component survival, have found a relative risk of loosening in congenital[32] and traumatic causes,[33] which may well have been the failure to achieve initial rigid mechanical stabilisation in the presence of bone defect, among other factors. For this reason, some surgeons will use porous metal wedges, like modular tantalum acetabular augments, which have the properties of increased porosity, high coefficient of friction and greater bone in-growth potential, to first address the defect and provide structural support and containment for the hemispherical acetabular cup[34],[35] with satisfactory outcome of early and mid-term results.


  Conclusion Top


Different methods and opinion will continue to exist concerning the best way to manage acetabular bone loss associated with neglected post-traumatic hip dislocation at primary surgery among the available options of autogenous bone grafting, all cemented or reversed hybrid fixations, multiple screws fixation using multihole cementless acetabular cup, the choice of leaving “small defects alone” or reconstruction with acetabular augments for larger defects at primary surgery. Whatever method so chosen, restoring hip centre of rotation, correct cup placement and achieving sound mechanical stability will strongly be desirable in maximising potential for satisfactory long-term outcome.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Pugalenthi PV, Ramanathan S, Thanappan N, Vidhya Sagar M. A rare case of neglected unreduced posterior dislocation of hip managed with total hip arthroplasty-a case report. J Evol Med Dent Sci 2017;6:1953-7.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Bülent E, Cengiz Y, Hakan A, Bahattin G, Ilker C. Total hip arthroplasty in developmental high dislocation of the hip. J Arthrop 2005;20:1021-8.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Donald SG, Murray JP. Role and results of segmental allografts for acetabular segmental bone deficiency. Orthop Clin 1998;29-2:263-75.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Ballester Alfaro JJ, Sueiro Fernández J. Trabecular metal buttress augment and the trabecular metal cup-cage construct in revision hip arthroplasty for severe acetabular bone loss and pelvic discontinuity. Hip Int 2010;20 Suppl 7:S119-27.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Slooff TJ, Buma P, Schreurs BW, Schimmel JW, Huiskes R, Gardeniers J. Acetabular and femoral reconstruction with impacted graft and cement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996;324:108-15. doi: 10.1097/00003086-199603000-00013. PMID: 8595745.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Bragdon CR, Jasty M, Greene M, Rubash HE, Harris WH. Biologic fixation of total hip implants. Insights gained from a series of canine studies. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004;86-A Suppl 2:105-17.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
van Haaren EH, Heyligers IC, Alexander FG, Wuisman PI. High rate of failure of impaction grafting in large acetabular defects. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2007;89:296-300.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Zahar A, Papik K, Lakatos J, Cross MB. Total hip arthroplasty with acetabular reconstruction using a bulk autograft for patients with developmental dysplasia of the hip results in high loosening rates at mid-term follow-up. Int Orthop 2014;38:947-51.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Shinar AA, Harris WH. Bulk structural autogenous grafts and allografts for reconstruction of the acetabulum in total hip arthroplasty. Sixteen-year-average follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1997;79:159-68.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Mulroy RD Jr., Harris WH. Failure of acetabular autogenous grafts in total hip arthroplasty. Increasing incidence: A follow-up note. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1990;72:1536-40.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Emerson RH, Head WC, Berklacich FM, Malinin TI. Non-cemented acetabular revision arthroplasty using allograft bone. Clin Orthop 1989;249:30-43.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Jasty M, Harris WH. Salvage total hip reconstruction in patients with major acetabular bone deficiency using structural femoral head allografts. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1990;72:63-7.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Kwong LM, Jasty M, Harris WH. High failure rate of bulk femoral head allografts in total hip acetabular reconstructions at 10 years. J Arthroplasty 1993;8:341-6.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Gerber SD, Harris WH. Femoral head autografting to augment acetabular deficiency in patients requiring total hip replacement. A minimum five-year and an average seven-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1986;68:1241-8.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Barrack RL. Early failure of modern cemented stems. J Arthroplasty 2000;15:1036-50.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Dorr LD, Luckett M, Conaty JP. Total hip arthroplasties in patients younger than 45 years. A nine- to ten-year follow-up study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990;260:215-9. PMID: 2225627.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Nieuwenhuijse MJ, Valstar ER, Kaptein BL, Nelissen RG. Good diagnostic performance of early migration as a predictor of late aseptic loosening of acetabular cups: Results from ten years of follow-up with Roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis (RSA). J Bone Joint Surg Am 2012;94:874-80.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Laupacis A, Bourne R, Rorabeck C, Feeny D, Tugwell P, Wong C. Comparison of total hip arthroplasty performed with and without cement: A randomized trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2002;84:1823-8.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Clohisy JC, Harris WH. Matched-pair analysis of cemented and cementless acetabular reconstruction in primary total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2001;16:697-705.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Jones LC, Hungerford DS. “Cement disease.” Clin Orthop 1987;225:192-206.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Della Valle CJ, Berger RA, Rosenberg AG, Galante JO. Cementless acetabular reconstruction in revision total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004 Mar;(420):96-100. doi: 10.1097/00003086-200403000-00013. PMID: 15057083.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Hungerford DS, Jones LC. The rationale of cement less revision of cemented arthroplasty failures. Clin Orthop 1988;235:12-24.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Mulroy RD Jr., Harris WH. The effect of improved cementing techniques on component loosening in total hip replacement. An 11-year radiographic review. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1990;72:757-60.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Wyatt M, Hooper G, Frampton C, Rothwell A. Survival outcomes of cemented compared to uncemented stems in primary total hip replacement. World J Orthop 2014;5:591-6.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Zhang C, Yan CH, Zhang W. Cemented or cement less fixation for primary hip arthroplasty – Evidence from The International Joint Replacement Registries. Ann Joint 2017;2:57.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Jämsen E, Eskelinen A, Peltola M, Mäkelä K. High early failure rate after cementless hip replacement in the octogenarian. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014;472:2779-89.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Mäkelä KT, Matilainen M, Pulkkinen P, Fenstad AM, Havelin L, Engesaeter L, et al. Failure rate of cemented and uncemented total hip replacements: Register study of combined Nordic database of four nations. BMJ 2014;348:f7592.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Aspenberg P, Goodman S, Toksvig-Larsen S, Ryd L, Albrektsson T. Intermittent micromotion inhibits bone ingrowth. Titanium implants in rabbits. Acta Orthop Scand 1992;63:141-5.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Jasty M, Bragdon C, Burke D, O'Connor D, Lowenstein J, Harris WH.In vivo skeletal responses to porous-surfaced implants subjected to small induced motions. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1997;79:707-14.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Søballe K, Hansen ES, B-Rasmussen H, Jørgensen PH, Bünger C. Tissue ingrowth into titanium and hydroxyapatite-coated implants during stable and unstable mechanical conditions. J Orthop Res 1992;10:285-99.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Perona PG, Lawrence J, Paprosky WG, Patwardhan AG, Sartori M. Acetabular micromotion as a measure of initial implant stability in primary hip arthroplasty. An in vitro comparison of different methods of initial acetabular component fixation. J Arthroplasty 1992;7:537-47.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Furnes O, Lie SA, Espehaug B, Vollset SE, Engesaeter LB, Havelin LI. Hip disease and the prognosis of total hip replacements. A review of 53,698 primary total hip replacements reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register 1987-99. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2001;83:579-86. doi: 10.1302/0301-620x.83b4.11223. PMID: 11380136.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Bordini B, Stea S, de Clerico M, Strazzari S, Sasdelli A, Toni A. Factors affecting aseptic loosening of 4750 total hip arthroplasties: Multivariate survival analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2007;8:69.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Whitehouse MR, Masri BA, Duncan CP, Garbuz DS. Continued good results with modular trabecular metal augments for acetabular defects in hip arthroplasty at 7 to 11 years. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2015;473:521-7.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Honcharuk E, Kayiaros S, Rubin LE. The direct anterior approach for acetabular augmentation in primary total hip arthroplasty. Arthroplast Today 2018;4:33-9.  Back to cited text no. 35
    




 

Top
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Patient Evaluation
Challenges in Su...
Discussion
Conclusion
References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed120    
    Printed6    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded10    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal