Hemiarthroplasty proximal femoral endoprostheses following tumour reconstruction: is acetabular replacement necessary?

Stevenson, J. D.; Kumar, V. S.; Cribb, G. L.; Cool, P.

Abstract

Aims
Dislocation rates are reportedly lower in patients requiring proximal femoral hemiarthroplasty than for patients undergoing hip arthroplasty for neoplasia. Without acetabular replacement, pain due to acetabular wear necessitating revision surgery has been described. We aimed to determine whether wear of the native acetabulum following hemiarthroplasty necessitates revision surgery with secondary replacement of the acetabulum after proximal femoral replacement (PFR) for tumour reconstruction.

Patients and Methods
We reviewed 100 consecutive PFRs performed between January 2003 and January 2013 without acetabular resurfacing. The procedure was undertaken in 74 patients with metastases, for a primary bone tumour in 20 and for myeloma in six. There were 48 male and 52 female patients, with a mean age of 61.4 years (19 to 85) and median follow-up of two years (interquartile range (IQR) 0.5 to 3.7 years). In total, 52 patients presented with a pathological fracture and six presented with failed fixation of a previously instrumented pathological fracture.

Results
All patients underwent reconstruction with either a unipolar (n = 64) or bipolar (n = 36) articulation. There were no dislocations and no acetabular resurfacings. Articular wear was graded using the criteria of Baker et al from 0 to 3, where by 0 is normal; grade 1 represents a narrowing of articular cartilage and no bone erosion; grade 2 represents acetabular bone erosion and early migration; and grade 3 represents protrusio acetabuli. Of the 49 patients with radiological follow-up greater than one year, six demonstrated grade 1 acetabular wear and two demonstrated grade 2 acetabular wear. The remainder demonstrated no radiographic evidence of wear. Median medial migration was 0.3 mm (IQR -0.2 to 0.7) and superior migration was 0.3 mm (IQR -0.2 to 0.6). No relationship between unipolar versus bipolar articulations and wear was evident.

Conclusion
Hemiarthroplasty PFRs for tumour reconstruction eliminate joint instability and, in the short to medium term, do not lead to native acetabular wear necessitating later acetabular resurfacing.

Citation

Stevenson, J. D., Kumar, V. S., Cribb, G. L., & Cool, P. (2018). Hemiarthroplasty proximal femoral endoprostheses following tumour reconstruction: is acetabular replacement necessary?. The Bone & Joint Journal, 100-B(1), 101-108. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.100b1.bjj-2017-0005.r1

• Journal Article Type: Article
• Online Publication Date: Jan 1, 2018
• Publication Date: 2018-01
• Deposit Date: Jun 23, 2023
• Journal: The Bone & Joint Journal
• Print ISSN: 2049-4394
• Electronic ISSN: 2049-4408
• Publisher: British Editorial Society of Bone and Joint Surgery
• Peer Reviewed: Peer Reviewed
• Volume: 100-B
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 101-108
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.100b1.bjj-2017-0005.r1
• Keywords: Orthopedics and Sports Medicine; Surgery
• Public URL: https://keele-repository.worktribe.com/output/503489
• Additional Information: Published: 2018-01-01