Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® 2/2016

01-02-2016 | Symposium: 2015 Hip Society Proceedings

Can Radiographs Predict the Use of Modular Stems in Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip?

Authors: Christopher L. Peters, MD, Jesse Chrastil, MD, Gregory J. Stoddard, MPH, MBA, Jill A. Erickson, PA-C, Mike B. Anderson, MSc, Christopher E. Pelt, MD

Published in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® | Issue 2/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Abnormal anatomy frequently results in the use of a modular stem in patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) for developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH). However, because these stems are not always available in the operating room, it would be helpful if standard radiographic views could be analyzed in such a way that patients whose femoral anatomy might call for stem modularity could be anticipated before surgery. To our knowledge, no such parameters have been defined.

Questions/purposes

In the senior author’s practice, we used femoral neck anteversion of more than 25° as a determinant for use of a modular stem. Given this criterion, we asked if we could reliably identify plain film radiographic parameters of the femur that predict the use of modular stems. We looked at the following: (1) the neck-shaft angle based on the anteroposterior (AP) radiograph (alpha); (2) the neck-shaft angle from the crosstable lateral radiograph (beta); and (3) the calculated femoral anteversion angle.

Methods

We reviewed preoperative radiographs from 50 of 67 patients (79 hips) who had a primary diagnosis of DDH and underwent primary THA from January 1999 to February 2007 inclusive. Hips with prior femoral-sided surgery (n = 2) or without preoperative films (n = 19) were excluded. Furthermore, patients with bilateral hips had the second hip excluded (n = 8). Twenty-one of 50 received a modular femoral stem based on the criterion of intraoperative neck-shaft anteversion of greater than 25° as measured by the senior surgeon (CLP), whereas the remainder received tapered nonmodular stems. There were no differences in age, sex, height, or weight between the modular stem group and tapered stem group. Radiographs were evaluated to record the parameters listed.

Results

Patients in whom modular femoral stems were used had a greater mean AP (alpha) neck-shaft angle compared with patients who received tapered nonmodular stem (152°; 95% confidence interval [CI], 146°–157° versus 137°; 95% CI, 134°–141°; p < 0.001) with an optimal cutoff point for determining the use of modular stems of ≥ 142° (receiver operating characteristic [ROC] area = 73%). Hips in which modular femoral stems were chosen had a smaller mean lateral (beta) neck-shaft angle (152°; 95% CI, 148°–157° versus 161°; 95% CI, 158°–164°; p = 0.003) with an optimal cutoff point of ≤ 153° (ROC area = 65%). Hips in which modular femoral stems were used had a higher femoral anteversion angle (mean 45°; 95% CI, 37°–54° versus 21°; interquartile range, 17°–25°; p < 0.001) with an optimal cutoff of ≥ 32° (ROC area = 80%).

Conclusions

Preoperative radiographs anticipated the use of modular stems during THA for DDH in a practice where modular stems were chosen on the basis of a neck-shaft angle of greater than 25° measured at surgery. We found that this could be predicted on preoperative radiographs based on smaller lateral neck-shaft angles, steeper AP radiographic neck-shaft angles, and increased femoral anteversion calculated using these angles. Prospective studies are needed to better determine if these cutoff values adequately predict the use of modular stems.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Biant LC, Bruce WJ, Assini JB, Walker PM, Walsh WR. Primary total hip arthroplasty in severe developmental dysplasia of the hip. Ten-year results using a cementless modular stem. J Arthroplasty. 2009;24:27–32.PubMedCrossRef Biant LC, Bruce WJ, Assini JB, Walker PM, Walsh WR. Primary total hip arthroplasty in severe developmental dysplasia of the hip. Ten-year results using a cementless modular stem. J Arthroplasty. 2009;24:27–32.PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1:307–310.PubMedCrossRef Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1:307–310.PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Crowe JF, Mani VJ, Ranawat CS. Total hip replacement in congenital dislocation and dysplasia of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1979;61:15–23.PubMed Crowe JF, Mani VJ, Ranawat CS. Total hip replacement in congenital dislocation and dysplasia of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1979;61:15–23.PubMed
4.
go back to reference Faldini C, Miscione MT, Chehrassan M, Acri F, Pungetti C, d’Amato M, Luciani D, Giannini S. Congenital hip dysplasia treated by total hip arthroplasty using cementless tapered stem in patients younger than 50 years old: results after 12-years follow-up. J Orthop Traumatol. 2011;12:213–218.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Faldini C, Miscione MT, Chehrassan M, Acri F, Pungetti C, d’Amato M, Luciani D, Giannini S. Congenital hip dysplasia treated by total hip arthroplasty using cementless tapered stem in patients younger than 50 years old: results after 12-years follow-up. J Orthop Traumatol. 2011;12:213–218.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Harrell F, Lee K, Mark D. Tutorial in biostatistics mutlivariable prognostic models: Issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors. Stat Med. 1996;15:361–387.PubMedCrossRef Harrell F, Lee K, Mark D. Tutorial in biostatistics mutlivariable prognostic models: Issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors. Stat Med. 1996;15:361–387.PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Lin LI. A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics. 1989;45:255–268.PubMedCrossRef Lin LI. A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics. 1989;45:255–268.PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Linnet K, Brandt E. Assessing diagnostic tests once an optimal cutoff point has been selected. Clin Chem. 1986;32:1341–1346.PubMed Linnet K, Brandt E. Assessing diagnostic tests once an optimal cutoff point has been selected. Clin Chem. 1986;32:1341–1346.PubMed
8.
go back to reference Noble PC, Kamaric E, Sugano N, Matsubara M, Harada Y, Ohzono K, Paravic V. Three-dimensional shape of the dysplastic femur: implications for THR. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;417:27–40.PubMed Noble PC, Kamaric E, Sugano N, Matsubara M, Harada Y, Ohzono K, Paravic V. Three-dimensional shape of the dysplastic femur: implications for THR. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;417:27–40.PubMed
9.
go back to reference Ogata K, Goldsand EM. A simple biplanar method of measuring femoral anteversion and neck-shaft angle. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1979;61:846–851.PubMed Ogata K, Goldsand EM. A simple biplanar method of measuring femoral anteversion and neck-shaft angle. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1979;61:846–851.PubMed
10.
go back to reference Rosenkrantz AB, Lim RP, Haghighi M, Somberg MB, Babb JS, Taneja SS. Comparison of interreader reproducibility of the prostate imaging reporting and data system and likert scales for evaluation of multiparametric prostate MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;201:W612–618.PubMedCrossRef Rosenkrantz AB, Lim RP, Haghighi M, Somberg MB, Babb JS, Taneja SS. Comparison of interreader reproducibility of the prostate imaging reporting and data system and likert scales for evaluation of multiparametric prostate MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;201:W612–618.PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Royston P, Sauerbrie W. Bootstrap assessment of the stability of multivariable models. STATA J. 2009;9:547–570. Royston P, Sauerbrie W. Bootstrap assessment of the stability of multivariable models. STATA J. 2009;9:547–570.
12.
go back to reference Sugano N, Noble PC, Kamaric E, Salama JK, Ochi T, Tullos HS. The morphology of the femur in developmental dysplasia of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1998;80:711–719.PubMedCrossRef Sugano N, Noble PC, Kamaric E, Salama JK, Ochi T, Tullos HS. The morphology of the femur in developmental dysplasia of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1998;80:711–719.PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Tamegai H, Otani T, Fujii H, Kawaguchi Y, Hayama T, Marumo K. A modified S-ROM stem in primary total hip arthroplasty for developmental dysplasia of the hip. J Arthroplasty. 2013;28:1741–1745.PubMedCrossRef Tamegai H, Otani T, Fujii H, Kawaguchi Y, Hayama T, Marumo K. A modified S-ROM stem in primary total hip arthroplasty for developmental dysplasia of the hip. J Arthroplasty. 2013;28:1741–1745.PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Wiberg G. Studies on dysplastic acetabula and congenital syb-luxation of the hip joint. With special reference to the complication of osteoarthritis. Acta Chir Scand Suppl. 1939;58:7–38. Wiberg G. Studies on dysplastic acetabula and congenital syb-luxation of the hip joint. With special reference to the complication of osteoarthritis. Acta Chir Scand Suppl. 1939;58:7–38.
15.
go back to reference Yiannakopoulos CK, Xenakis T, Karachalios T, Babis GC, Hartofilakidis G. Reliability and validity of the Hartofilakidis classification system of congenital hip disease in adults. Int Orthop. 2009;33:353–358.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Yiannakopoulos CK, Xenakis T, Karachalios T, Babis GC, Hartofilakidis G. Reliability and validity of the Hartofilakidis classification system of congenital hip disease in adults. Int Orthop. 2009;33:353–358.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Can Radiographs Predict the Use of Modular Stems in Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip?
Authors
Christopher L. Peters, MD
Jesse Chrastil, MD
Gregory J. Stoddard, MPH, MBA
Jill A. Erickson, PA-C
Mike B. Anderson, MSc
Christopher E. Pelt, MD
Publication date
01-02-2016
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® / Issue 2/2016
Print ISSN: 0009-921X
Electronic ISSN: 1528-1132
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-015-4458-8

Other articles of this Issue 2/2016

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® 2/2016 Go to the issue