2D planning for hip arthroplasty

The paper presents data analysis of the Hip Arthroplasty Register of Vreden Russian Research Institute of Traumatology and Orthopedics, namely information on 37373 primary THA performed at the Vreden Institute and at several other orthopedic centers and 1200 hip replacements at other hospitals of St. Petersburg.There were 1.5 times more women in the studied cohort than men. A significant predominance of women with dysplastic osteoarthritis (72.4%) and rheumatoid arthritis (82.1%) was reported. A male predominance was noted in patients with secondary osteoarthritis (53.1%), post-traumatic changes of hip (61.0%) and osteonecrosis of the femoral head (68.6 %). The mean age of patients was 58.0±12.9 years (95% CI from 57.9 to 58.1, median 59 years). Age data of the study revealed that patients were 10-12 years younger than reported in the national arthroplasty registers of other countries.Total hip arthroplasty was performed in the absolute majority of patients – 37295 cases (99,8%). Uncemented implants were used in 59.3% of cases, hybrid – in 29.6%, cemented – in 10.2%, reverse-hybrid – in 0.9% of all patients. The most common bearing used was metal on crosslink polyethylene, which was applied in 50.1% of all cases of arthroplasty. The type of fixation of the implant, and the use of different bearings varied in different age groups. The paper presents not only the absolute numbers of the data, but also demonstrated the dynamics of the changes in time starting from 2007.The present epidemiological study does not claim the absolute completeness of the presented data, but contains the analysis of the large number of cases, comparable with follow-ups of patients in some national registers of certain European countries. The authors analyzed about 10% of all cases of hip replacements performed on the territory of the Russian Federation in ten-year period.

Section: материал и методыunclassified

Section: рис 8 распределение типов фиксации эндопротезов в разных вunclassified

unclassified

See 3 more Smart Citations

Epidemiology of Primary Hip Arthroplasty: Report From Register of Vreden Russian Research Institute of Traumatology and Orthopedics

Шубняков

Тихилов

Николаев³

et al. 2017

Assessment of Acetabulum Deformity During Preoperative Planning for Hip Arthroplasty

Martynenko

Волошин

Sherman

et al. 2019

Purpose of the study — to improve the two-dimensional planning of total hip joint arthroplasty to ensure precise positioning of the acetabular component in the deformed acetabulum. Materials and methods. Features of roentgenological anatomy of acetabulum and its coverage were studied on 1058 hip joint x-rays in the AP view in accordance with the procedure developed by the authors to define acetabular square — the site of standard positioning of a spherical femoral head in the acetabulum or of a hemispherical acetabular component. The method consisted of identifying the apex of “teardrop” figure; the most lateral points of the pelvic terminal line and roof of the acetabulum; superior part of the acetabular cavity; medial and inferior points of acetabular coverage, and building the sides of acetabular square — medial, inferior, lateral and superior boundary lines. Connection of “teardrop” apex and lateral point of the pelvic terminal line formed the medial side of acetabular square, and a perpendicular to that line drawn through the “teardrop” apex to its inferior side. The lateral side was drawn either through the intersection of the ascending diagonal line — bisector from the top of the “teardrop” figure with the contour of the acetabulum roof, or was a part of the projection of the most lateral point of the acetabular roof on the inferior side of the square. The superior side was a perpendicular connecting the intersection of the ascending diagonal and lateral bounding lines with the medial side of the acetabular square. The area of the deformed acetabular cavity located outside of the acetabular square was assessed as the acetabular defect. Results. Method of defining the acetabular square allowed to identify types of ratios between acetabular cavity and acetabular coverage in transverse (9 types) and longitudinal (7 types) direction. Combination of transverse ratio of acetabular cavity and coverage with longitudinal type allowed to define the options of acetabular deformities in two-dimensional view. The authors identified 25 types of acetabular deformities. Bone defects of acetabular walls were of the major importance among all anatomical features. Cranial defect of acetabulum was observed in 450 cases, medial wall defect — in 38 cases, defect including cranial and medial areas — in 7 cases. Conclusion. The method suggested by the authors to determine acetabular square and acetabular deformity variations allows to screen the anatomical features of the acetabulum during two-dimensional preoperative planning and to make an informed decision on the need to use other planning techniques. The type of acetabular deformity identified during preoperative planning allows to elaborate the indications for replacement of acetabular bone defects and/or resection of acetabular osteophytes.

What Has Changed in the Structure of Revision Hip Arthroplasty?

Shubnyakov

Шубняков²,

Тихилов³

et al. 2019

The key aspects of the study: 1) what has changed in the structure of revisions in recent years? 2) what is the spectrum of reasons for revision after primary hip arthroplasty and re-revision? 3) what are the demographic features of patients’ population undergoing the revision? Materials and methods. The authors conducted a retrospective evaluation of 2415 hip revision cases during the period of time from 2014 until 2018. Separately the authors assessed revisions after primary surgeries and re-revisions as well as the group of early revisions. Results. In the period from 2014 until 2018 the overall share of revisions was 16,6% from all total hip arthroplasties, at the same time the authors reported the absolute 1.7 times increase in number of revisions as well as increased share of revisions in the total structure of hip arthroplasty from 12,5% to 18,9% without significant variances in the number of primary procedures. The share of early revisions increased from 32.9% in 2013 to 56.7% while the number of early revisions amounted to 37.4% of all primary revisions. Gender composition in primary and revision hip arthroplasty varied insignificantly. Mean age at the moment of hip revision was 59.2% (95% CI from 58.7 to 59.7; Me 60 years) which is slightly less than in primary replacement — 60.2 years (95% CI from 58.9 to 61.1; Me 62 years), but such variances had a high statistical significance, р0.001. The main reasons for primary revisions were aseptic loosening of prosthesis components (50.3%), infection (27.6%), polyethylene wear and osteolysis (9.0%) as well as dislocations (6,2%). Re-revisions structure featured prevalence of infection (69.0%), aseptic loosening (20.8%) and dislocations (7,8%). Mean period of time after primary hip arthroplasty to revision was 7.9 years (95% CI from 7.7 to 8.2; Me 7.3), to first re-revision — 2.9 (95% CI from 2.6 to 3.2; Me 1.2), to second re-revision — 2.2 (95% CI from 1.8 to 2.7; Me 1.1), to third — 2,2 (95% CI from 1.7 to 2.8; Me 1.1), to fourth — 1.0 (95% CI from 0.6 to 1.3; Me 0.6), remaining cases demonstrated rather high heterogeneity. Conclusion. In the result of the present study the authors observed increased number of all revision hip arthroplasties, especially the share of early revisions within first five years from the moment of previous surgery. The most often reason for revision after primary hip arthroplasty was aseptic loosening of one or both components of prosthesis. Infection was the absolute leader in the group of re-revisions constituting over half of all reasons for secondary intervention.