Abstract
Introduction
Natural population variation in femoral morphology results in a large range of offsets, anteversion angles and lengths. During total hip arthroplasty, accurate restoration of hip biomechanics is essential to achieve good functional results. One option is to restore the anatomic hip rotation center. Alternatively, medializing the rotation center and compensating by increasing the femoral offset, reduces acetabular contact forces and increases the abductor lever arm. We investigated the ability of two cemented stem systems to restore hip biomechanics in an anatomic and medialized way. We compared an undersized “Exeter-type” of stem with three offset options and 18 sizes (CPT, Zimmer), to a line-to-line “Kerboul-type” of stem with proportional offset and 12 sizes (Centris, Mathys).
Methods
Thirty CT scans of whole femora were segmented and the hip rotation center, proximal femoral axis and femoral length were determined with Mimics and 3-matic (Materialise). Using scripting functionality in the software, CAD design files of both stems were automatically sized and aligned along the proximal femoral axis to restore an anatomical and a 5 mm medialized hip rotation center. Stem size and position could be fine-tuned manually. The maximum distances between the prosthetic (PRC), the anatomic (ARC) and the medialized hip rotation center (MRC) were calculated (Fig. 1). Variations in femoral offset (ΔFO), anteroposterior (ΔAP) and proximodistal distance (ΔPD) were analyzed. Finally, the number of cases where the hip rotation center could be restored within 5 mm was reported.
Results
Both implants allowed restoring the ARC accurately (mean distance PRC-ARC: CPT 0.97±0.88 mm, Centris 1.66±1.59 mm; mean difference ΔFO: CPT 0.09±0.19 mm, Centris 0.11±0.29 mm; mean difference ΔAP: CPT 0.12±1.22°, Centris 0.27±1.78 mm, mean difference ΔPD: CPT 0.04±0.44 mm, Centris 0.49±1.35 mm). The CPT stem allowed restoring the PRC within 5 mm of the ARC in all cases (max. 4.31 mm), whereas the Centris stem achieved this in only 28/30 hips (max. 6.72 mm) (Fig. 2).
Aiming for a MRC was less satisfactory with both stems (mean distance PRC-MRC: CPT 1.38±1.63 mm, Centris 3.61±2.73 mm; mean difference ΔFO: CPT 0.09±0.10 mm, Centris 0.06±0.35 mm; mean difference ΔAP: CPT 0.17±2.02 mm, Centris 2.58±2.68 mm, mean difference ΔDP; CPT 0.28±0.67 mm, Centris 1.98±1.66 mm). The CPT stem allowed restoring the PRC within 5 mm of the MRC in 29/30 cases (max. 8.09 mm), whereas the Centris stem achieved this in only 25/30 cases (max. 11.15 mm) (Fig. 3).
Discussion
Although both stem systems allowed restoring hip biomechanics accurately in most cases, the CPT system was superior to the Centris stem for achieving both ARC and MRC. This could be explained by more implant sizes (18 vs. 12) and undersized stems offering more freedom to correct version. Although medializing the hip rotation center offers biomechanical advantages, both stems had more difficulties achieving this. In some cases, differences between aimed and planned rotation centers were close to 1 cm which might negatively impact on clinical outcome. As such, to avoid suboptimal reconstructions with the available implants, templating is mandatory especially when aiming at a medialized reconstruction strategy.
