header advert
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

Hip

CAN ACETABULAR BONE STOCK BE IMPROVED BY USING LESS STIFF ACETABULAR COMPONENTS?

International Hip Society (IHS) Closed Meeting, Gothenburg, Sweden, June 2018.



Abstract

Stress shielding has been a well-recognised problem with uncemented femoral components resulting in proximal bone loss and dysfunction, but less attention has been paid to the preservation of acetabular bone stock. Uncemented acetabular components often demonstrate reduced bone density on plain radiographs in the mid-portion of the cup (zone 2), which may be due to the rigidity of the outer shell. This study compares the change in bone density around three different cups with varying moduli of elasticity at a minimum of 2 years. Our hypothesis was that less rigid cups would be associated with improved bone density and less stress shielding.

This prospective randomised controlled trial compared the bone mineral content (BMC) adjacent to three different cups with marked differences in stiffness. Cup A was an all titanium shell, cup B was a titanium coated all polyethylene implant and cup C was a tantalum backed shell. All articulations used a 32mm ceramic femoral head. Cup B used polyethylene modified by treatment with vitamin E whereas cups A and C used a liner made of irradiated cross linked polyethylene.

Five regions of interest (ROI) were established adjacent to the cup, regions 2, 3 and 4 where similar to the DeLee and Charnley regions 1, 2 and 3. Bone density was measured using IDXA preoperatively, postoperatively, 6 months, 1 and 2 years and compared for each ROI and implant.

Precision measurements showed significant reliability. All areas showed a reduction in BMC following insertion of the acetabular cup. Bone loss was less in ROI 1 and 4 in the area of rim fit for all cups and the maximal bone loss was seen in ROI 2 and 3 at the dome of the cup. The more elastic cup (Cup B) produced the least bone loss in this area (p<0.05). Cup C produced the largest bone loss at ROI 2 (40%) which continued increasing at 2 years.

Cup stiffness is related to bone loss adjacent to the acetabulum, presumably due to a similar process of stress shielding as seen in the femur. All cups produced similar changes at the periphery of the cup but the more elastic cup retained bone density beneath the cup which continued past 2 years. This improvement in bone quality is likely to be associated with better acetabular bone stock into the future and more reliable long term cup fixation.


Email: