Influence of acetabular cup thickness on seating and primary stability in total hip arthroplasty.

Insufficient primary stability of acetabular hip cups is a complication resulting in early cup loosening. Available cup designs vary in terms of wall thickness, potentially affecting implant fixation. This study investigated the influence of different wall thicknesses on the implantation process and the resulting primary stability using excised human acetabula. Implantations were performed using a powered impaction device providing consistent energy with each stroke. Two different wall thicknesses were compared in terms of seating progress, polar gap remaining after implantation, bone-to-implant contact area, cup deflection, and lever out moment. Thin-walled cups showed higher lever out resistance (p < 0.001) and smaller polar gaps (p < 0.001) with larger bone contact toward the dome of the cup (p < 0.001) compared to thick-walled cups. Small seating steps at the end of the impaction process were observed if a high number of strokes were needed to seat the cup (p = 0.045). A high number of strokes led to a strain release of the cup during the final strokes (p = 0.003). This strain release is indicative for over-impaction of the cup associated with bone damage and reduced primary stability. Adequate cup seating can be achieved with thin-walled cups with lower energy input in comparison to thicker ones. Thin-walled cups showed improved primary stability and enable implantation with lower energy input, reducing the risk of over-impaction and bone damage. Additional strokes should be avoided as soon as no further seating progress has been observed.

Factors influencing periprosthetic femoral fracture risk.

AIMS: Periprosthetic femoral fractures (PPF) are a serious complication of total hip arthroplasty (THA) and are becoming an increasingly common indication for revision arthroplasty with the ageing population. This study aimed to identify potential risk factors for PPF based on an analysis of registry data. METHODS: Cases recorded with PPF as the primary indication for revision arthroplasty in the German Arthroplasty Registry (Endoprothesenregister Deutschland (EPRD)), as well as those classified as having a PPF according to the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes in patients' insurance records were identified from the complete datasets of 249,639 registered primary hip arthroplasties in the EPRD and included in the analysis. RESULTS: The incidence of PPFs was higher (24.6%; 1,483) than reported in EPRD annual reports listing PPF as the main reason for revision (10.9%; 654). The majority of fractures occurred intraoperatively and were directly related to the implantation process. Patients who were elderly, female, or had comorbidities were at higher risk of PPFs (p < 0.001). German hospitals with a surgical volume of < 300 primary procedures per year had a higher rate of PPFs (p < 0.001). The use of cemented and collared prostheses had a lower fracture risk PPF compared to uncemented and collarless components, respectively (both p < 0.001). Collared prostheses reduced the risk of PPF irrespective of the fixation method and hospital's surgical volume. CONCLUSION: The high proportion of intraoperative fractures emphasises the need to improve surgeon training and surgical technique. Registry data should be interpreted with caution because of potential differences in coding standards between institutions. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(4):650-658.