Rationale for the use of the original classification of posttraumatic acetabular deformities in primary total hip replacement

Introduction. Analysis of publications on primary hip replacement shows lower survival rates in patients with acetabular injuries. With the lack of a unified system for assessing post-traumatic acetabular deformities, authors tend to use the available classifications of acute pelvic trauma (AO/ ASIF, Young & Burgess, Tile, etc.) and acetabular osteolysis (AAOS, DGOT, Gross and Saleh, Paprosky), which we think can be inappropriate with the classifying systems meant for different patterns of acetabular deficiency.

Material and methods. CT scans of 117 patients with posttraumatic acetabular deformities were reviewed prior to total hip replacement (THR) performed for posttraumatic grade III coxarthrosis. The displacement of acetabular walls was determined with the measurements tabulated and analyzed.

Results. An original "ASPID" classification of post-traumatic deformities based on the findings obtained was offered with use of three assessment criteria: localization of the deformity, extent of displacement and the integrity of the pelvic ring. The ASPID classification can be used for the localization of the deformity with anterior (A), superior (S), posterior (P) and inner acetabular walls (I) to be identified. Measurements of displacement ranging 0-5 mm suggests grade 0 displacement; 6-15 mm, grade 1 displacement and greater than 15 mm, grade 2 displacement. The integrity of the pelvic ring evaluated from the involvement side as D0 suggests maintained pelvic integrity and D1, broken pelvic integrity. An acetabular hardware would be marked with 'H'.

Conclusion. ASPID classification is easy to use and has shown to be practical for planning of primary THR after acetabular fracture.

1. Karachalios T., Komnos G., Koutalos A. Total hip arthroplasty: Survival and modes of failure. EFORT Open Rev., 2018, vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 232-239. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.3.170068.

2. Pivec R., Johnson A.J., Mears S.C., Mont M.A. Hip arthroplasty. Lancet, 2012, vol. 380, no. 9855, pp. 1768-1777. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60607 2.

3. Singh J.A., Schleck C., Harmsen S., Lewallen D. Clinically important improvement thresholds for Harris Hip Score and its ability to predict revision risk after primary total hip arthroplasty. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord., 2016, vol. 17, pp. 256. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-016-1106-8.

4. Andreeva T.M., Ogryzko E.V., Popova M.M., comp. Eskin N.A., editor. Travmatizm, ortopedicheskaia zabolevaemost, sostoianie travmatologo-ortopedicheskoi pomoshchi naseleniiu Rossii v 2018 godu: sbornik [Traumatism, orthopedic morbidity, the state of traumatological and orthopedic care for the population of Russia in 2018: collection of works]. M., TsITO im. N.N. Priorova, 2019, 166 p. (in Russian)

5. Pilz V., Hanstein T., Skripitz R. Projections of primary hip arthroplasty in Germany until 2040. Acta Orthopaedica, 2018, vol. 89, no. 3, pp. 308-313. DOI: 10.1080/17453674.2018.1446463.

6. Stibolt R.D. Jr., Patel H.A., Huntley S.R., Lehtonen E.J., Shah A.B., Naranje S.M. Total hip arthroplasty for posttraumatic osteoarthritis following acetabular fracture: A systematic review of characteristics, outcomes, and complications. Chin. J. Traumatol., 2018, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 176-181. DOI: 10.1016/j.cjtee.2018.02.004.

7. Morison Z., Moojen D.J., Nauth A., Hall J., McKee M.D., Waddell J.P., Schemitsch E.H. Total hip arthroplasty after acetabular fracture is associated with lower survivorship and more complications. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res., 2016, vol. 474, no. 2, pp. 392-398. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-015-4509-1.

8. Khurana S., Nobel T.B., Merkow J.S., Walsh M., Egol K.A. Total hip arthroplasty for posttraumatic osteoarthritis of the hip fares worse than THA for primary osteoarthritis. Am. J. Orthop. (Belle Mead NJ), 2015, vol. 44, no. 7, pp. 321-325.

9. Hamlin K., Lazaraviciute G., Koullouros M., Chouari T., Stevenson I.M., Hamilton S.W. Should total hip arthroplasty be performed acutely in the treatment of acetabular fractures in elderly or used as a salvage procedure only? Indian J. Orthop., 2017, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 421-433. DOI: 10.4103/ortho.IJOrtho_138_16.

10. Pronskikh A.A., Kharitonov K.N., Kuzin V.Iu., Efimenko M.V., Golenkov O.I., Pavlov V.V. Endoprotezirovanie tazobedrennogo sustava u patsientov s obshirnymi posttravmaticheskimi defektami vertluzhnoi vpadiny sovremennye problemy nauki i obrazovaniia [Arthoroplasty of the hip in patients with extensive posttraumatic defects of the acetabulum]. Sovremennye Problemy Nauki i Obrazovaniia, 2019, no. 5. (in Russian) Available at: http://www.science-education.ru/ru/article/view?id=29253 (accessed 08.03.2021).

11. Meinberg E.G., Agel J., Roberts C.S., Karam M.D., Kellam J.F. Fracture and dislocation classification compendium-2018. J. Orthop. Trauma, 2018, vol. 32, no. Suppl. 1, pp. S1-S170. DOI: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000001063.

12. Burgess A.R., Eastridge B.J., Young J.W., Ellison T.S., Ellison P.S. Jr., Poka A., Bathon G.H., Brumback R.J. Pelvic ring disruptions: effective classification system and treatment protocols. J. Trauma, 1990, vol. 30, no. 7, pp. 848-856.

13. Tile M. Pelvic ring fractures: should they be fixed? J. Bone Joint Surg. Br., 1988, vol. 70, no. 1, pp. 1-12. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.7 0B1.3276697.

14. D'Antonio J.A., Capello W.N., Borden L.S., Bargar W.L., Bierbaum B.F., Boettcher W.G., Steinberg M.E., Stulberg S.D., Wedge J.H. Classification and management of acetabular abnormalities in total hip arthroplasty. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res., 1989, no. 243, pp.126- 137.

15. Bettin D., Katthagen B.D. Die DGOT-Klassifikation von Knochendefekten bei Hüft-Totalendoprothesen-Revisionsoperationen [The German Society of orthopedics and Traumatology classification of bone defects in total hip endoprostheses revision operations]. Z. Orthop. Ihre. Grenzgeb., 1997, vol. 135, no. 4, pp. 281-284. (in German) DOI: 10.1055/s-2008-1039389.

16. Saleh K.J., Holtzman J., Gafnia Saleh L., Jaroszynski G., Wong P., Woodgate I., Davis A., Gross A.E. Development, test reliability and validation of a classification for revision hip arthroplasty. J. Orthop. Res., 2001, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 50-56. DOI: 10.1016/S0736- 0266(00)00021-8.

17. Paprosky W.G., Perona P.G., Lawrence J.M. Acetabular defect classification and surgical reconstruction in revision arthroplasty. A 6-year follow-up evaluation. J. Arthroplasty, 1994, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 33-44. DOI: 10.1016/0883-5403(94)90135-x.

18. Chiladze I.T. Totalnoe endoprotezirovanie tazobedrennogo sustava pri posledstviiakh perelomov vertluzhnoi vpadiny. Avtoref. diss. kand. med. nauk [Total arthroplasty of the hip for the consequences of acetabular fractures. Cand. med. sci. diss. abstr.]. SPb., 2011, 27 p. (in Russian)

19. Tikhilov R.M., Shubniakov I.I., Chiladze I.T., Pliev D.G., Shorustamov M.T., Artiukh V.A., Ambrosenkov A.V., Blizniukov V.V., Miasoedov A.A. Vybor sposoba implantatsii vertluzhnogo komponenta na osnove rabochei klassifikatsii posledstvii perelomov vertluzhnoi vpadiny [The choice of the technique of implantation of the acetabular component based on the working classification of the consequences of acetabular fractures].Travmatologiia i Ortopediia Rossii, 2011, no. 2 (60), pp. 37-43. (in Russian)

20. Miliukov A.Iu. Klassifikatsiia povrezhdenii vertluzhnoi vpadiny [Classification of acetabular injuries]. Meditsina i Obrazovanie v Sibiri, 2012, no. 2, pp. 53-54. (in Russian)