PURPOSE: In total hip arthroplasty (THA) the use of a polyethylene (PE) insert with a hooded rim can be considered to reduce dislocation risks. This benefit has to be balanced against the potential introduction of impingement of the femoral component on this rim. We present a case series of early acetabular revisions for excessive PE wear and acetabular bone defects from overuse of such a hooded rim insert. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty-eight patients with 34 consecutive early acetabular revisions were evaluated on failure mechanism. One type of implant was used in all cases. Standard pelvic radiographs and pre-operative CT scans were used to quantify PE wear, implant positioning and acetabular bone defects. RESULTS: An acetabular revision with impaction grafting was performed in all cases with a mean cup survival of ten years (range 1.3-19.3). No concurrent stem revisions were necessary. Overall implant positioning was adequate with a mean cup inclination of 45° (range 39-57) and anteversion of 25° (range eight to 45). The mean PE wear was 0.24 mm/year (range 0.00-1.17). The mean acetabular bone defect on pelvic CT scans was calculated as 352 mm² (range zero to 1107) and 369 mm² (range zero to 1300) in the coronal and transversal planes, respectively. A hooded acetabular insert was retrieved in all cases and profound PE wear, typically from the posterior hooded rim, was encountered. CONCLUSION: The use of hooded acetabular inserts may be considered to improve implant stability intra-operatively. This case series clearly presents that together with these devices, component impingement with concordant complications such as accelerated PE wear may be introduced. Standard use of these stabilizing inserts should thus be avoided.
PURPOSE: In total hip arthroplasty (THA) the use of a polyethylene (PE) insert with a hooded rim can be considered to reduce dislocation risks. This benefit has to be balanced against the potential introduction of impingement of the femoral component on this rim. We present a case series of early acetabular revisions for excessive PE wear and acetabular bone defects from overuse of such a hooded rim insert. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty-eight patients with 34 consecutive early acetabular revisions were evaluated on failure mechanism. One type of implant was used in all cases. Standard pelvic radiographs and pre-operative CT scans were used to quantify PE wear, implant positioning and acetabular bone defects. RESULTS: An acetabular revision with impaction grafting was performed in all cases with a mean cup survival of ten years (range 1.3-19.3). No concurrent stem revisions were necessary. Overall implant positioning was adequate with a mean cup inclination of 45° (range 39-57) and anteversion of 25° (range eight to 45). The mean PE wear was 0.24 mm/year (range 0.00-1.17). The mean acetabular bone defect on pelvic CT scans was calculated as 352 mm² (range zero to 1107) and 369 mm² (range zero to 1300) in the coronal and transversal planes, respectively. A hooded acetabular insert was retrieved in all cases and profound PE wear, typically from the posterior hooded rim, was encountered. CONCLUSION: The use of hooded acetabular inserts may be considered to improve implant stability intra-operatively. This case series clearly presents that together with these devices, component impingement with concordant complications such as accelerated PE wear may be introduced. Standard use of these stabilizing inserts should thus be avoided.
Authors: Jeroen J Nieuwenhuis; Jan de Waal Malefijt; Jan C M Hendriks; Taco Gosens; Michel Bonnet Journal: Acta Orthop Belg Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 0.500