THE ROLE OF ACETABULAR COMPONENT POSITIONING IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF INFLAMMATORY PSEUDOTUMOURS

Abstract

Introduction: The development of Inflammatory Pseudotumour (IP) is a recognised complication following Metal on Metal Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty (MoMHRA), thought to occur secondary to wear and elevated ion levels. Studies have shown that acetabular component orientation influences the wear of metal-on-metal hip replacement bearings. The aims of this study were to investigate the significance of cup orientation in the development of IP, and to identify a ‘safe-zone’ for cup placement with lower-risk for IP development.

Methods: Twenty six patients (n=27 hips) with IP confirmed radiologically, intra-operatively and histologically were matched for sex, age, pre-operative diagnosis, component size and follow-up with a cohort of asymptomatic MoMHRA patients (Control n=58). Radiographic acetabular anteversion and inclination were measured using EBRA. We calculated the distance in degree space of each acetabular component from the optimum position of 40° inclination and 20° anteversion, recommended by the designers, and thus compared acetabular component position between the two groups. Three different zones were tested as possibly optimum for acetabular placement. These were Lewinneck’s Zone (LZ) (inclination/anteversion; 30–50°/5–25°), and two zones defined by ±5° (Zone 1) or ± 10° (Zone 2) about the suggested target of 40°/20°. An optimal placement zone was determined based on a significant difference in IP incidence between components in the zone versus those outside.

Results: There was a wide range in cup orientations; mean inclination and anteversion were similar in the two groups: IP 47.5° (10.1°–80.6°)/14.1° (4.1°–33.6°) Vs Control 46.1° (28.8°–59.8°)/15.6° (4.3°–32.9°). Acetabular components in the IP group were significantly further away from the optimum position of 40°/20° in comparison to the controls (p=0.023). There was no difference in IP incidence between cups positioned within (IP:13/27, Control:35/58) or out of LZ (p=0.09) and within (IP: 2/27, Control: 10/58) or out of Zone 1 (p=0.156). Cups placed in Zone 2 (IP:6/27, Control:27/58) had significantly lower IP incidence versus those outside this zone (p=0.01). The odd’s ratio of developing IP when the cup is positioned out-of Zone 2 was 3.7.

Discussion: This study highlights the importance of ace-tabular component orientation in IP development. On the whole, patients with pseudotumour had acetabular components that were further away from the optimum position in comparison to the controls. However, a small number of IP patients had well-placed components implying that additional factors, possibly patient and/or gender specific, are involved in the development of pseudotumour. Furthermore, we defined an optimum, ‘safe-zone’ of ±10° around the cup position of 40°/20°. Patients with acetabular components outside this safe zone have an increased risk of IP development.