Abstract
During revision THR, the surgery is often difficult and compromised due to lack of patient's bone especially in the pelvis. Any extra bone in the acetabulum is expected to be of advantage to the patient and the surgeon. The aim of this study was to see if preservation of medial acetabular osteophyte in uncemented total hip replacement had any adverse effect on the prosthesis survival or patient satisfaction.
Conventional acetabular preparation involves reaming down to the true floor. This not only medialises the centre of rotation of the hip but also reduces the acetabular offset. In contrast the main surgeon preserved the acetabular offset by preserving some osteophytic bone between the true floor of the acetabulum and the acetabular cup. This is achieved by reaming the acetabular cavity conservatively while achieving secure primary fixation of the prosthesis. We report the outcome of a single surgeon series of such cases. The endpoint was assessed as the need for revision of the acetabular cup.
A total of 106 consecutive patients were identified who underwent uncemented THR from 2005 to 2010. The medial osteophyte was measured on immediate post-operative x-rays, from the “teardrop” to the nearest point of the acetabular cup, by 3 surgeons (one consultant and 2 registrars). The patients were contacted for a telephone interview and their clinical notes, including x-rays, were reviewed.
Outcome was available for 79 patients. 74 patients were available for follow-up and 5 patients died unrelated to THR. Average follow-up was for 8.3 years (range 5.5–10.8). Average age was 62 years. The average medial osteophyte was 1.98 mm (range 0–14mm). One patient had late infection and one had dislocation. There was not a single failure of the acetabular component. The patient satisfaction was high at 8.8 out of 10.
Preservation of medial osteophyte in the acetabulum whilst doing uncemented THR has the advantage of retaining the patient's own bone stock which can be of great advantage to the surgeon as well as the patient should revision THR be required in future. Our study has shown that this can be achieved without compromising the survival of the prosthesis or the patient satisfaction.
This technique may increase the range of motion of the hip by reducing the risk of bony or soft tissue impingement, and also reduce the risk of dislocation. Furthermore, not recreating the native centre of rotation of the hip does not seem to have any adverse effect for the patients, who are very happy with the outcome. We recommend that whilst doing uncemented THR, the acetabulum should not be reamed to the true floor as has been the conventional teaching, but attempt should be made to preserve some medial osteophyte where possible, at the same ensuring that good primary fixation of the cup is achieved. This is to give the patient and surgeon the advantage of extra available bone should revision surgery be required in the future.
