The morphological variation of acetabular defects in revision total hip arthroplasty-A statistical shape modeling approach.
acetabular bone loss
bone defects
classification
quantification
volume analysis
Journal
Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society
ISSN: 1554-527X
Titre abrégé: J Orthop Res
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8404726
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 2021
11 2021
Historique:
revised:
23
12
2020
received:
22
10
2020
accepted:
19
01
2021
pubmed:
26
1
2021
medline:
19
4
2022
entrez:
25
1
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Classification and evaluation of acetabular defects remain challenging and are primarily based on qualitative classification methods. That is because quantitative techniques describing variations of acetabular defects and accompanying bone loss volume are not available. This study introduces a new method based on statistical shape models (SSMs) to quantitively describe acetabular defects. This method is then applied to 87 acetabular defects to objectively describe the variations in acetabular defects typically encountered during revision total hip arthroplasty. The absolute bone loss volume, relative bone loss volume, and relative bone loss surface area with respect to the SSM-based pre-diseased anatomy were used to quantify the acetabular bone defects in different segments of the acetabular surface. The absolute bone loss volume of the average defect shape was equal to 37.0 cm
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2419-2427Informations de copyright
© 2021 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Inacio MCS, Graves SE, Pratt NL, Roughead EE, Nemes S. Increase in total joint arthroplasty projected from 2014 to 2046 in Australia: a conservative local model with international implications. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017;475(8):2130-2137.
Rupp M, Lau E, Kurtz SM, Alt V. Projections of primary TKA and THA in Germany from 2016 through 2040. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2020;478(7):1622-1633.
Ancelin D, Reina N, Cavaignac E, et al. Total hip arthroplasty survival in femoral head avascular necrosis versus primary hip osteoarthritis: case-control study with a mean 10-year follow-up after anatomical cementless metal-on-metal 28-mm replacement. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2016;102(8):1029-1034.
Zagra L. Advances in hip arthroplasty surgery: what is justified? EFORT Open Rev. 2017;2(5):171-178.
Hu CY, Yoon T-R. Recent updates for biomaterials used in total hip arthroplasty. Biomater Res. 2018;22:33. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6280401/
Clarke IC, Gustafson A. Clinical and hip simulator comparisons of ceramic-on-polyethylene and metal-on-polyethylene wear. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000;379:34-40.
Ong KL, Kurtz SM, Lau E, Bozic KJ, Berry DJ, Parvizi J. Prosthetic joint infection risk after total hip arthroplasty in the medicare population. J Arthroplasty. 2009;24(6, Suppl):105-109.
Lindahl H, Malchau H, Herberts P, Garellick G. Periprosthetic femoral fractures: classification and demographics of 1049 periprosthetic femoral fractures from the Swedish National Hip Arthroplasty Register. J Arthroplasty. 2005;20(7):857-865.
Patel A, Pavlou G, Mújica-Mota RE, Toms AD. The epidemiology of revision total knee and hip arthroplasty in England and Wales: a comparative analysis with projections for the United States. A study using the National Joint Registry dataset. Bone Joint J. 2015;97(8):1076-1081.
Gu A, Adriani M, Malahias M-A, et al. Reliability and validity of acetabular and femoral bone loss classification systems in total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review. HSS J. 2020;l6:288-295. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11420-020-09766-4
Horas K, Arnholdt J, Steinert AF, Hoberg M, Rudert M, Holzapfel BM. Acetabular defect classification in times of 3D imaging and patient-specific treatment protocols. Orthopäde. 2017;46(2):168-178.
Macdonald W, Carlsson LV, Charnley GJ, Jacobsson CM, Johansson CB. Inaccuracy of acetabular reaming under surgical conditions. J Arthroplasty. 1999;14(6):730-737.
Saluja R, Bargar WL, Newman MA, Wiedel JD. The use of oblong acetabular components in complex acetabular reconstructions. Oper Tech Orthop. 2000;10(2):153-159.
Hooten JP, Engh CA. Failure of structural acetabular allografts in cementless revision hip arthroplasty. Bone Joint J. 1994;76(3):419-422.
Borland WS, Bhattacharya R, Holland JP, Brewster NT. Use of porous trabecular metal augments with impaction bone grafting in management of acetabular bone loss. Acta Orthop. 2012;83(4):347-352.
Li H, Qu X, Mao Y, Dai K, Zhu Z. Custom acetabular cages offer stable fixation and improved hip scores for revision THA with severe bone defects. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016;474(3):731-740.
Hettich G, Schierjott RA, Ramm H, et al. Method for quantitative assessment of acetabular bone defects. J Orthop Res. 2019;37(1):181-189.
Schierjott RA, Hettich G, Graichen H, et al. Quantitative assessment of acetabular bone defects: a study of 50 computed tomography data sets. PLoS One. 2019;14(10):e0222511.
Meynen A, Matthews H, Nauwelaers N, et al. Accurate reconstructions of pelvic defects and discontinuities using statistical shape models. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng. 2020:1-8.
White JD, Ortega-Castrillón A, Matthews H, et al. MeshMonk: open-source large-scale intensive 3D phenotyping. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):1-11.
Lüthi M, Gerig T, Jud C, Vetter T. Gaussian process morphable models. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell. 2018;40(8):1860-1873.
Schönborn S, Egger B, Morel-Forster A, Vetter T. Markov chain Monte Carlo for automated face image analysis. Int J Comput Vis. 2017;123(2):160-183.
Styner MA, Rajamani KT, Nolte L-P, et al. 2003. Evaluation of 3D correspondence methods for model building. In: Biennial International Conference on Information Processing in Medical Imaging. Springer. 63-75.
Davies RH 2002. Learning shape: optimal models for analysing natural variability. University of Manchester Manchester.
Horn JL. A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika. 1965;30(2):179-185.
Wasielewski RC, Cooperstein LA, Kruger MP, Rubash HE. Acetabular anatomy and the transacetabular fixation of screws in total. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1990;72:501-508.
Looney RJ, Boyd A, Totterman S, et al. Volumetric computerized tomography as a measurement of periprosthetic acetabular osteolysis and its correlation with wear. Arthritis Res Ther. 2001;4(1):59.
Garcia-Cimbrelo E, Tapia M, Martin-Hervas C. Multislice computed tomography for evaluating acetabular defects in revision THA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;463:138-143.
Egawa H, Ho H, Huynh C, Hopper RH, Engh AC, Engh CA. A three-dimensional method for evaluating changes in acetabular osteolytic lesions in response to treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(2):480-490.
Leung S, Naudie D, Kitamura N, Walde T, Engh CA. Computed tomography in the assessment of periacetabular osteolysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(3):592-597.
Puri L, Wixson RL, Stern SH, Kohli J, Hendrix RW, Stulberg SD. Use of helical computed tomography for the assessment of acetabular osteolysis after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84(4):609-614.
Gelaude F, Demol J, Clijmans T, Delport H. CT-based quantification of bone loss for refined classification of acetabular deficiencies: comparison of 30 Paprosky type IIIA-B cases. Orthop Proc. 2013;95-B(SUPP_1):26.
Paprosky WG, Perona PG, Lawrence JM. Acetabular defect classification and surgical reconstruction in revision arthroplasty: a 6-year follow-up evaluation. J Arthroplasty. 1994;9(1):33-44.
Audenaert EA, Pattyn C, Steenackers G, De Roeck J, Vandermeulen D, Claes P. Statistical shape modeling of skeletal anatomy for sex discrimination: their training size, sexual dimorphism, and asymmetry. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2019;7:302. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fbioe.2019.00302/full