Jumbo cup in hip joint renovation may cause the center of rotation to increase

Abstract

BACKGROUND Utilizing the large jumbo cup in revision total hip arthroplasty is an effective approach to cure many lacunar and segmental peripheral bone defects. However, with the use of the jumbo cup, the center of the hip joint may become elevated relative to the primary acetabulum, and the diameter of the large cup is greater. AIM To study the height and the significance of the elevation of the hip joint center. METHODS Eighty-eight patients matched the criteria for this condition and were included in the study. The center height of the hip joint was measured relative to the opposite normal hip joint. The diameter of the jumbo cup was measured and checked according to operation notes, and the diameter of the jumbo cup was measured with a prosthesis label. Then, the horizontal and vertical centers of rotation were measured on the surgical side and opposite side. The average center height of the hip joint on the renovated side and the opposite side and the position of the hip cup relative to the teardrop were compared using a paired t -test. RESULTS Radiometric analysis showed that the average hip joint center was elevated by 7.6 mm. The rotational center height delta of the renovated hip was 7.6 ± 5.6 mm, and there was an obvious difference between the two groups ( P = 0.00). The difference in horizontal distance was 0.5 ± 5.1 mm (-11.5 -14.0 mm), and there was no obvious difference between the two groups ( P = 0.38). According to the foreign standard, the rotational center height delta of the renovated hip was 7.5 ± 6.2 mm, and there was a significant difference between the two groups ( P = 0.00). There was no obvious difference between the domestic and foreign standards ( P > 0.05) between the two groups. CONCLUSION The application of the jumbo cup elevates the rotational center of the hip joint, but it is feasible and effective to use the jumbo cup.

Acetabular Revision Arthroplasty Based on 3-Dimensional Reconstruction Technology Using Jumbo Cups

“…However, the current study confirmed that the use of the jumbo cup still leads to a HCOR upshift, particularly in AAOS III patients, which reminds surgeons that the use of the jumbo cup technology in more severe acetabular bone defects requires in-depth consideration as it may change hip biomechanics, increase the risk of component loosening, and increase the need of re-revision surgery ( Delp et al, 1996 ; Peng et al, 2021 ). Of course, these negative effects can be averted through technological advancements in the development of prostheses, such as improving the friction interface ( Hu et al, 2015 ) and increasing the length of the femoral head ( Woelfle et al, 2014 ).…”

Clinical and radiological outcomes of jumbo cup in revision total hip arthroplasty: A systematic review

“…The literature search initially identified 101 articles and finally included 19 articles in this systematic review according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria ( 31 – 49 ) ( Figure 1 ). Among the 19 articles, 2 articles were pure radiological studies ( 31 , 40 ).…”

“…The literature search initially identified 101 articles and finally included 19 articles in this systematic review according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria ( 31 – 49 ) ( Figure 1 ). Among the 19 articles, 2 articles were pure radiological studies ( 31 , 40 ). There were three pairs of cognate articles (six articles) that were published in different years ( 38 , 39 , 41 , 45 , 48 , 49 ).…”

“…The mean follow-up was 9.3 years. In the radiological result analysis part, 631 hips in 11 studies were included ( 31 – 34 , 37 , 40 , 43 , 44 , 47 – 49 ). The data of the hip center position and leg-length discrepancy were extracted and analyzed ( Table 6 ).…”

“…One was a diameter >66 mm for males and >62 mm for females and was usually adopted in European and American studies ( 35 , 36 , 39 – 42 , 45 , 46 , 48 ). The other was a diameter >64 mm for males and >60 mm for females and was usually adopted in Asian studies ( 31 – 33 , 44 ). Other definitions included diameter >60 mm ( 34 , 47 ), >64 mm ( 43 ), >65 mm ( 38 ), >66 mm ( 49 ), and diameter >10 mm than templated contralateral hip ( 37 ).…”