Relationship Between Acetabular Hounsfield Unit Values and Periprosthetic Fractures in Cementless Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Matched Case-Control Study.
Acetabulum
Hounsfield unit
Occult fracture
Periprosthetic fracture
Total hip arthroplasty
Journal
Arthroplasty today
ISSN: 2352-3441
Titre abrégé: Arthroplast Today
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101681808
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2022
Apr 2022
Historique:
received:
25
10
2021
accepted:
29
11
2021
entrez:
5
5
2022
pubmed:
6
5
2022
medline:
6
5
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The association between regional bone status around the acetabulum and the incidence of intraoperative acetabulum fractures has not been extensively studied. We investigated the association of Hounsfield unit (HU) values on computed tomography in the regions of the acetabulum with periprosthetic fractures. We retrospectively reviewed records of 301 consecutive patients who underwent cementless total hip arthroplasty between October 2016 and December 2020. Using preoperative computed tomography taken in the 4 weeks preceding total hip arthroplasty, we measured HU values in 4 different acetabulum regions (anterior, medial, posterior, and superior). After identifying fracture cases, we identified a control group-matched in terms of sex, age, and preoperative diagnosis-selected in a 1:3 ratio among nonfracture patients treated in the same inclusive period. As the average HU values differed by region, we used the standardized value to compare fracture-site HUs. We ranked the standardized HU values for each acetabular site and compared the fracture site rank between the groups. Intraoperative acetabular fractures were observed in 10 hips (3.2%), occurring most frequently in the superior region (40%). The standardized HU values of the fracture site were statistically lower in the fracture group ( Periprosthetic fractures tended to occur at relatively weak parts of the acetabulum.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
The association between regional bone status around the acetabulum and the incidence of intraoperative acetabulum fractures has not been extensively studied. We investigated the association of Hounsfield unit (HU) values on computed tomography in the regions of the acetabulum with periprosthetic fractures.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
We retrospectively reviewed records of 301 consecutive patients who underwent cementless total hip arthroplasty between October 2016 and December 2020. Using preoperative computed tomography taken in the 4 weeks preceding total hip arthroplasty, we measured HU values in 4 different acetabulum regions (anterior, medial, posterior, and superior). After identifying fracture cases, we identified a control group-matched in terms of sex, age, and preoperative diagnosis-selected in a 1:3 ratio among nonfracture patients treated in the same inclusive period. As the average HU values differed by region, we used the standardized value to compare fracture-site HUs. We ranked the standardized HU values for each acetabular site and compared the fracture site rank between the groups.
Results
UNASSIGNED
Intraoperative acetabular fractures were observed in 10 hips (3.2%), occurring most frequently in the superior region (40%). The standardized HU values of the fracture site were statistically lower in the fracture group (
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
Periprosthetic fractures tended to occur at relatively weak parts of the acetabulum.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35510068
doi: 10.1016/j.artd.2021.11.016
pii: S2352-3441(21)00231-4
pmc: PMC9059077
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
216-222.e1Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Authors.
Références
J Arthroplasty. 2019 Jul;34(7):1400-1411
pubmed: 30956049
J Bone Miner Metab. 2016 Jul;34(4):457-63
pubmed: 26056023
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994 Jan;(298):127-36
pubmed: 8118967
Acta Med Okayama. 2021 Feb;75(1):71-77
pubmed: 33649616
Hip Int. 2020 Jul;30(4):370-379
pubmed: 31672068
Int Orthop. 2019 Jul;43(7):1583-1590
pubmed: 30097730
J Orthop Sci. 2021 Sep;26(5):812-822
pubmed: 32933832
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1995 Jan;77(1):111-7
pubmed: 7822342
Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2021 Oct;31(7):1411-1419
pubmed: 33585969
J Arthroplasty. 1999 Jun;14(4):426-31
pubmed: 10428222
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017 Feb;475(2):484-494
pubmed: 27800574
Arch Osteoporos. 2017 Dec 7;12(1):110
pubmed: 29218502
J Arthroplasty. 1992 Sep;7(3):295-301
pubmed: 1402946
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006 Sep;88(9):1952-6
pubmed: 16951110
Bone Joint Res. 2013 Dec 10;2(12):264-9
pubmed: 24326398
J Arthroplasty. 2002 Jun;17(4 Suppl 1):11-3
pubmed: 12068395
Case Rep Orthop. 2011;2011:939202
pubmed: 23259104
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012 Nov;470(11):3014-23
pubmed: 22576930
J Bone Miner Res. 2018 May;33(5):860-867
pubmed: 29314261
Osteoporos Int. 2020 Nov;31(11):2123-2130
pubmed: 32594205
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011 Jun 1;93(11):1057-63
pubmed: 21655899
J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2018 Apr;80:1-10
pubmed: 29414463
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2019 Apr;477(4):850-860
pubmed: 30811362
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012 Nov;94(11 Suppl A):26-31
pubmed: 23118376
J Arthroplasty. 2019 Jul;34(7S):S352-S354
pubmed: 30852066
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004 Mar;(420):96-100
pubmed: 15057083
Int Orthop. 2015 Oct;39(10):1959-63
pubmed: 26311511
J Arthroplasty. 2015 Feb;30(2):265-9
pubmed: 25307882
Int Orthop. 2015 Oct;39(10):1995-2003
pubmed: 26318880