Original Research

Radiographically Silent Loosening of the Acetabular Component in Hip Arthroplasty

Am J Orthop. 2015 September;44(9):406-410

References

1. Milošev I, Kovač S, Trebše R, Levašič V, Pišot V. Comparison of ten-year survivorship of hip prostheses with use of conventional polyethylene, metal-on-metal, or ceramic-on-ceramic bearings. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94(19):1756-1763.

2. D’Antonio JA, Capello WN, Naughton M. Ceramic bearings for total hip arthroplasty have high survivorship at 10 years. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470(2):373-381.

3. Dowd JE, Sychterz CJ, Young AM, Engh CA. Characterization of long-term femoral-head-penetration rates. Association with and prediction of osteolysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000;82(8):1102-1107.

4. Orishimo KF, Claus AM, Sychterz CJ, Engh CA. Relationship between polyethylene wear and osteolysis in hips with a second-generation porous-coated cementless cup after seven years of follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85(6):1095-1099.

5. Harris WH. Wear and periprosthetic osteolysis: the problem. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;(393):66-70.

6. Holt G, Murnaghan C, Reilly J, Meek RM. The biology of aseptic osteolysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;(460):240-252.

7. Catelas I, Jacobs JJ. Biologic activity of wear particles. Instr Course Lect. 2010;59:3-16.

8. Paprosky WG, Nourbash P, Gill P. Treatment of progressive periacetabular osteolysis: cup revision versus liner exchange and bone grafting. Paper presented at: Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons; February 4-8, 1999; Anaheim, CA.

9. Engh CA Jr, Claus AM, Hopper RH Jr, Engh CA. Long-term results using the anatomic medullary locking hip prosthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;(393):137-146.

10. Maloney WJ, Peters P, Engh CA, Chandler H. Severe osteolysis of the pelvic in association with acetabular replacement without cement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993;75(11):1627-1635.

11. Claus AM, Engh CA Jr, Sychterz CJ, Xenos JS, Orishimo KF, Engh CA Sr. Radiographic definition of pelvic osteolysis following total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85(8):1519-1526.

12. 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.

13. Stulberg SD, Wixson RL, Adams AD, Hendrix RW, Bernfield JB. Monitoring pelvic osteolysis following total hip replacement surgery: an algorithm for surveillance. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84(suppl 2):116-122.

14. Massin P, Schmidt L, Engh CA. Evaluation of cementless acetabular component migration. An experimental study. J Arthroplasty. 1989;4(3):245-251.

15. Park KS, Yoon TR, Song EK, Lee KB. Results of isolated femoral component revision with well-fixed acetabular implant retention. J Arthroplasty. 2010;25(8):1188-1195.

16. Egawa H, Ho H, Hopper RH Jr, Engh CA Jr, Engh CA. Computed tomography assessment of pelvic osteolysis and cup–lesion interface involvement with a press-fit porous-coated acetabular cup. J Arthroplasty. 2009;24(2):233-239.

17. Haidukewych GJ. Osteolysis in the well-fixed socket: cup retention or revision? J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012;94(12):65-69.

18. Stulberg BN, Della Valle AG. What are the guidelines for the surgical and nonsurgical treatment of periprosthetic osteolysis? J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2008;16(suppl 1):S20-S25.

19. Berger RA, Quigley LR, Jacobs JJ, Sheinkop MB, Rosenberg AG, Galante JO. The fate of stable cemented acetabular components retained during revision of a femoral component of a total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999;81(12):1682-1691.

20. Temmerman OP, Raijmakers PG, Deville WL, Berkhof J, Hooft L, Heyligers IC. The use of plain radiography, subtraction arthrography, nuclear arthrography, and bone scintigraphy in the diagnosis of a loose acetabular component of a total hip prosthesis: a systematic review. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22(6):818-827.

21. Temmerman OP, Raijmakers PG, David EF, et al. A comparison of radiographic and scintigraphic techniques to assess aseptic loosening of the acetabular component in a total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86(11):2456-2463.

22. Moore MS, McAuley JP, Young AM, Engh CA Sr. Radiographic signs of osseointegration in porous-coated acetabular components. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;(444):176-183.

23. Mehin R, Yuan X, Haydon C, et al. Retroacetabular osteolysis: when to operate? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;(428):247-255.

24. Mallory TH, Lombardi AV Jr, Fada RA, Adams JB, Kefauver CA, Eberle RW. Noncemented acetabular component removal in the presence of osteolysis: the affirmative. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000;(381):120-128.

25. Beaulé PE, Le Duff MJ, Dorey FJ, Amstutz HC. Fate of cementless acetabular components retained during revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85(12):2288-2293.

Results

Overall, 393 patients underwent revision arthroplasty for the diagnoses (ICD-9 codes) indicated (Figure). One hundred eighty-nine patients (48.1%) had CT performed before revision. Of these 189 patients, 85 were excluded for diagnoses that were evident on either plain radiography or CT, that necessitated urgent revision, or for procedures beyond the scope of the study (Table 1). CT showed a loose cup in 28 patients; 6 of these cups were also seen on CT. Thirteen patients were diagnosed with a loose femoral stem, 10 with a periprosthetic infection, and 8 with a periprosthetic fracture.

One hundred four patients (54 men, 50 women) met the study inclusion criteria. Mean age was 65.1 years. Of these 104 patients, 87 (83.7%) had a stable acetabular shell at time of revision surgery; the other 17 (16.3%) were diagnosed with RSL of the acetabular shell. Osteolysis was the most common diagnosis (89.4%) in the overall population, and pain was the most common complaint at time of presentation (66.6%). Lack of symptoms was the second most common presentation at time of revision (19.2%) (Table 2). Patients without symptoms underwent revision surgery because of concern about impending compromise of the bone–implant interface and progressive osteolysis.

The 2 groups (stable vs unstable acetabular shells) were not significantly different with respect to age (P = .961) or sex distribution (P = .185). All patients in the RSL group were diagnosed with osteolysis radiographically, and 15 (88%) of 17 patients presented with pain as the primary complaint, compared with only 54 (62%) of 87 patients in the group with stable shells. Patients with RSL were significantly more likely to present with pain as the primary complaint (P = .0487). Nineteen patients in the stable implant group and only 1 patient in the RSL group were asymptomatic, but this was not statistically significant (P = .185) when compared against all other diagnoses.

Discussion

We defined RSL as an acetabular component that was loose at time of revision surgery but that did not show frank signs of loosening on either plain radiography or CT. Patients with RSL and the surgeons who treat them are in a difficult position. In the setting of osteolysis, patients can be treated with serial radiographic imaging and clinical monitoring to determine if and when revision arthroplasty should be performed.¹⁷ However, given the complexity and risks associated with revision THA, surgeons should be aware that the acetabular shell may necessitate revision even if it does not appear to be frankly unstable on radiographic imaging.¹⁸

Of the 393 patients who underwent revision THA at our institution, 48.1% were evaluated with CT. Eighty-five of the 189 patients who underwent CT were diagnosed with radiographic loosening, or were diagnosed as needing urgent revision THA in the setting of loose components, periprosthetic infection, periprosthetic fracture, or catastrophic implant failure. Of the remaining 104 patients, 17 (16.3%) met the diagnosis of RSL of the acetabular component. The most common complaint was pain, and the most common diagnoses were osteolysis and polyethylene wear. Age and sex were not associated with increased likelihood of RSL.

Our study has several limitations. We defined the radiographic diagnosis of loose acetabular components as components showing frank migration, tilting, or a 2-mm concentric lucency on plain radiography or CT. Although these are common definitions of loose acetabular components, more sensitive radiographic measures have been described.¹⁶ We also excluded patients with recurrent dislocations and metal-on-metal prostheses, as these cases increase the metal artifact on CT and limit the ability to evaluate the bone–implant interface. Metal artifact remains an ongoing challenge to use of CT for post-THA imaging. However, tailored imaging protocols are helping to eliminate metal artifact. Bone scan was not used to evaluate for possible component loosening. Although sensitivity and specificity are about 67% and 76%, respectively,²⁰ Temmerman and colleagues²¹ also found poor intraobserver reliability (0.53) for bone scans in the setting of uncemented acetabular components. Last, our study did not evaluate the bony ingrowth patterns that corresponded to stable or unstable fixation and did not evaluate the volumetric size or anatomical location of the osteolytic lesions on CT. Careful assessment of these variables is clinically relevant when trying to determine if revision arthroplasty is warranted.

Although we used relatively simple radiographic criteria to define loose components, more sensitive and specific techniques have been described for both plain radiography and CT. Moore and colleagues²² described 5 radiographic signs of bony ingrowth; when 3 or more were present, sensitivity was 89.6% and specificity 76.9%. Mehin and colleagues²³ suggested that osteolysis involving more than 50% of the circumference of the shell on a standard pelvic radiograph might require revision arthroplasty. However, more recent studies have found that anteroposterior and lateral radiographs are less able to evaluate the anterior and posterior rims of the bone–implant interface, and it is this ingrowth area that may be the most crucial for stable osseointegration.^12,16