Are some neutral liners more neutral than others? An ex vivo morphological analysis of acetabular liners classified as “neutral”
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2024.41946Keywords:
Arthroplasty, Biomechanics, Hip, Implants, Jumping distanceAbstract
Background and purpose: In contemporary total hip replacement (THR), dislocation is one of the most common complications. At our institution, the cause of an increase in the dislocation rate was recently reported to be reduced head coverage of a newly introduced neutral liner. We therefore aimed to ascertain whether differences exist in articulating head coverage between the various neutral liners used in contemporary THR. A secondary aim was to utilize coverage measurements to develop a new liner coverage classification.
Methods: The articulating head coverage of 25 modular neutral polyethylene liners used in 6 uncemented cup designs from 4 major manufacturers was evaluated. The measurements were performed in a metrology laboratory and a mathematical model was developed to calculate coverage of the articulating surfaces. Further, 1 “elevated rim” liner and 1 “face changing liner” were included to develop a new liner coverage classification.
Results: The articulating head coverage among the studied liners ranged from 167.7° to 194.8°, corresponding to a variation of 27.1°. The variations with different cup and head sizes within each design were smaller (from 1.0° to 5.6°) than those between different designs. Each of the liner designs offered distinct coverage, even though they were all classified as neutral. Based on measurements, a set of descriptive parameters to discriminate different liners in terms of coverage was created.
Conclusion: We showed that all neutral liners are not equal – instead, they clearly varied in terms of their actual coverage design. We suggest our set of descriptive parameters called “hemispheric coverage index values” be used in discriminating the differences in liner coverage.
Downloads
References
Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Annual Report 2023, p. 118. Available from: https://aoanjrr.sahmri.com/annual-reports-2023 (accessed January 8, 2024).
Bozic K J, Kurtz S M, Lau E, Ong K, Vail T P, Berry D J. The epidemiology of revision total hip arthroplasty in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009; 91(1): 128-33. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.H.00155.
Goel A, Lau E C, Ong K L, Berry D J, Malkani A L. Dislocation rates following primary total hip arthroplasty have plateaued in the Medicare population. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30(5): 743-6. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2014.11.012.
Hermansen L L, Iversen T F, Iversen P, Viberg B, Overgaard S. The “true” 1-year incidence of dislocation after primary total hip arthroplasty: validation of an algorithm identifying dislocations in the Danish National Patient Register based on 5,415 patients from the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop 2024; 95: 380-5. doi: 10.2340/17453674.2024.41064.
National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man. Annual Report, 2023. p. 137. Available from: https://reports.njrcentre.org.uk/Portals/0/PDFdownloads/NJR%2020th%20Annual%20Report%202023.pdf (accessed January 8, 2024).
Pakarinen O A, Neuvonen P S, Reito A R P, Eskelinen A P. Increased risk for dislocation after introduction of the Continuum cup system: lessons learnt from a cohort of 1,381 THRs after 1-year follow-up. Acta Orthop 2020; 91(3): 279-85. doi: 10.1080/17453674.2020.1744981.
Schairer W W, Sing D C, Vail T P, Bozic K J. Causes and frequency of unplanned hospital readmission after total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014; 472(2): 464-70. doi: 10.1007/s11999-013-3121-5.
Ezquerra L, Quilez MP, Pérez M Á, Albareda J, Seral B. Range of movement for impingement and dislocation avoidance in total hip replacement predicted by finite element model. J Med Biol Eng 2017; 37(1): 26-34. doi: 10.1007/s40846-016-0210-4.
Lu Y, Xiao H, Xue F. Causes of and treatment options for dislocation following total hip arthroplasty. Exp Ther Med 2019; 18(3): 1715-22. doi: 10.3892/etm.2019.7733.
Scifert C F, Brown T D, Pedersen D R, Callaghan J J. A finite element analysis of factors influencing total hip dislocation. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1998; (355): 152-62. doi: 10.1097/00003086-199810000-00016.
Sariali E, Lazennec J Y, Khiami F, Catonné Y. Mathematical evaluation of jumping distance in total hip arthroplasty: influence of abduction angle, femoral head offset, and hea.d diameter. Acta Orthop 2009; 80(3): 277-82. doi: 10.3109/17453670902988378
Brien W W, Salvati E A, Wright T M, Burstein A H. Dislocation following THA: comparison of two acetabular component designs. Orthopedics. 1993; 16(8): 869-72. doi: 10.3928/0147-7447-19930801-04.
Griffin W L, Nanson C J, Springer B D, Davies M A, Fehring T K. Reduced articular surface of one-piece cups: a cause of runaway wear and early failure. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010; 468(9): 2328-32. doi: 10.1007/s11999-010-1383-8.
Tanino H, Harman M K, Banks S A, Hodge W A. Association between dislocation, impingement, and articular geometry in retrieved acetabular polyethylene cups. J Orthop Res 2007; 25(11): 1401-7. doi: 10.1002/jor.20410.
Behery O A, Long W J. The prevalence of elevated-rim polyethylene liner use in primary total hip arthroplasty in the New York State metropolitan area. Arthroplast Today 2019; 5(4): 486-488. doi: 10.1016/j.artd.2019.10.002.
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
License
Copyright (c) 2024 José Á Ochoa, Perttu S Neuvonen, Jari Hyttinen, Jari Viik, Antti P Eskelinen
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
