Total hip resurface replacement for development dysplasia of hip in adults:technique for setting the prosthesis and its clinical outcome

ZHU Zhen-an,YAN Meng-ning,TANG Jian,DAI Ke-rong
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1674-134X.2008.04.003
2008-01-01
Abstract:Objective To analyze the techniques of setting prosthesis and clinical outcome of hip resurface replacement in adults developmental dysplasia of hip. Methods From Jan, 2005 to Sep, 2007, a consecutive series of 45 total hip resurface replacement were performed for developmental dyaplasia of hip in 42 patients, including 3 patients with bilateral involved. There were 39 female and 3 male. The mean age was 46.3 years. According to the Crowe classification, there were 18 hips in 17 patients with type Ⅰ, 19 hips in 17 patients with type Ⅱ, 6 hips with type Ⅲ and 2 hips with type Ⅳ. All the patients received the three dimension reconstruction CT to measure the anteversion of acetabulum and femoral neck and the femoral neck-shaft angle. The operation was done with the modified Gibson posterolateral approach. For those patients with femoral neck-shaft angle less than 135°, the femoral head prostheses were implanted with 5° valgus; for those with femoral neck-shaft angle more than 135°, the prostheses were implanted with no change. The anteversion of femoral neck and acetabulum and the abduction of acetabulum were adjusted to a little smaller than those of origin because most of these patients had increased anteversion of femoral neck. Each patient was evaluated clinically and by radiographs before the operation and during the follow-up period, according to the Harris hip scores (HHS). The average femoral neck-shaft angle increased from preoperative 134.1° to postoperative 138.2°, in which whose angle less than 135° increased from preoperative 131.7° to postoperative 137°, and those with angle more than 135° increased from preoperative 140.9° to postoperative 141.5°. The average preoperative anteversion of femoral neck was 34.5°. All of the acetabular prostheses were implanted in the true acetabula and with average abduction angle of 42°. The limb discrepancy decreased from preoperative 2.1 cm to postoperative 0.5 cm. The average follow-up period was 14.6 months. The mean Harris hip score increased from preoperative 43.6 to 88.4 at the last follow-up. There was no femoral neck fracture or prosthesis loosening in the follow-up period. Conclusions The selective young patients with osteoarthritis secondary to DDH is good indication for total hip resurface replacement. And the short-term results were satisfied. Individual placement of prosthesis according to the anatomical characteristics of patient does improve the clinical outcome.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?