Total hip arthroplasty with S-ROM prosthesis and anatomic acetabular reconstruction under subtrochanteric osteotomy for CroweⅣdevelopmental dysplasia of hip

Zheng FAN,Yan LI,Liqing YANG,Qin FU
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.2095-9958.2016.02-09
2016-01-01
Abstract:Background:Due to distorted anatomy of Crowe typeⅣdevelopmental dysplasia of hip (DDH), total hip arthro-plasty (THA) in these patients represents technically demanding procedure and often gives rise to relatively high rate of complications. Objective:To investigate clinical efficacy of THA with S-ROM prosthesis and anatomic acetabular recon-struction as well as subtrochanteric osteotomy for CroweⅣdevelopmental dysplasia of hip (DDH). Methods:Fifteen (sev-enteen hips) patients with severe DDH (CroweⅣ) were treated by THA with S-ROM prosthesis and subtrochanteric osteot-omy from February 2011 to October 2015. Harris hip score, pelvic obliquity, limb-length discrepancy, anteversion angles of femoral neck and acetabulum/their prostheses and combined anteversion obtained by clinical observation and radiographic measurements were compared before and after operation. Results: Fifteen patients were followed up for (24.53 ± 17.17) months. Compared with preoperative ones, Harris hip score was significantly increased postoperatively (49±5.07 vs 81.36± 11.91), limb-length discrepancy significantly improved (shortening [58.0 ± 15.38]mm preoperatively, lengthening: [11.78 ± 7.99] mm postoperatively), angles of pelvic obliquity, anteversion angles of femoral neck, anteversion angles of acetabulum, and combined anteversion angles were significantly (3.06°±2.21° vs 1.93°±1.83°, 44.77°±11.68° vs 25.25°±8.11°, 27.84°± 9.19° vs 14.92° ± 2.69° , 71.81° ± 14.84° vs 39.45° ± 7.26° ). Nonunion was found in one patient at the site of osteotomy and slight limping remained in two patients postoperatively. No prosthesis loosening, subsidence or revision occurred. Conclu-sions: It is effective for Crowe Ⅳ DDH treated by THA with S-ROM prosthesis, anatomic acetabular reconstruction and subtrochanteric osteotomy.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?