Abstract
Use of “CPR” distance has proven clinical utility in stratifying risks of “steep cups” in MOM failures.[1, 4] The CPR indice has been defined as distance between point of intersection of the hip reaction force (Fig. 1: vector-R in contact patch) and closest point on the inner cup rim.[4] However, the CPR indice has limitations. It assumes that, (1) the hip load-vector (R) will be angled 10°-medial in all patients, (2) the contact patch will be same size in all patients, and (3) the contact patch will be invariant with increasing MOM diameter. In contrast it is known from retrieval studies that larger MOM bearings created much larger wear patches.[3] Furthermore, the size of cup wear-patches in MOM bearings can now be estimated with some certainty using simulator wear data.[2] Our objective was to develop an algorithm that would predict (i) contact-patch size for all cup designs and diameters, (ii) determine actual margin of safety (Fig. 1: MOS) for different laterally-inclined cups, and (iii) predict critical test angles for “steep” cup studies in hip simulators.
The ‘CPR-distance’ (Fig. 1) is subtended by the CPA angle, but the true margin of safety is the distance from edge of wear patch to cup rim, indicated here by MOS angle. In this algorithm the wear-patch size (CAP angle) is a key parameter, as derived from MOM wear data (Fig. 2). The CAP angles decrease with increasing MOM diameter, as defined by strong linear trend (R=0.998). The key 2nd parameter is cup inclination angle that juxtaposes the wear-pattern to the cup rim (CCI). For hemispherical cups the critical inclination is given by CCI = 90 – CAP/2, where articulation angle ABA = 180o. The cup bearing-surface is typically reduced < 180o(sub-hemispherical profile, instrumentation groove, rim bevel, etc). These effects are grouped under ‘rim-detail’, as defined by RD = (180-ABA)/2 (Fig. 1). Thus critical inclination any cup is given by CCI = 90o – (CAP/2) – RD = (ABA – CAP)/2. The margin-of-safety (Fig. 1) is then represented by the equation MOS = 100 – (CIA + CAP/2 + RD).
Applicability of the new algorithm can be visualized with a 48mm MOM (cup ABA=160o) run in a standard simulator test (Fig. 3). The algorithm predicts that with cup at 40o inclination there is good margin of safety (11.8o), representing a 5mm distance. This would become much reduced at CIA = 50o, while true edge-wear appears at the 60o test inclination (Fig. 3. EW = −8.2o). For clinical comparison with ‘CPR-distances’, the algorithm shows that positioning the wear patch 10o-medial (Figs. 1, 3) has margin of safety averaging 11.5 mm (MOS) less than was predicted by the CPR indice. While CPR has shown clinical utility, it is believed that compensating for actual size of cup wear-patterns provides a more realistic risk assessment for different MOM diameters in different cup positions. Thus the new algorithm permits accurate depiction of cup wear-patterns for use in both clinical and simulator studies.
