Biomechanical analysis and clinical observation of 3D-printed acetabular prosthesis for the acetabular reconstruction of total hip arthroplasty in Crowe III hip dysplasia

• Published in: Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
• Main Authors: Yuchen Liu, Fuyang Wang, Jiawei Ying, Minghao Xu, Yuan Wei, Junlei Li, Hui Xie, Dewei Zhao, Liangliang Cheng
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Frontiers Media S.A. 2023-09-01
• Subjects: developmental dysplasia of the hip; acetabular reconstruction; 3D printing; integral acetabular prosthesis; modular acetabular prosthesis; finite element analysis
• Online Access: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fbioe.2023.1219745/full

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the biomechanical effectiveness of 3D-printed integrated acetabular prosthesis (IAP) and modular acetabular prosthesis (MAP) in reconstructing the acetabulum for patients with Crowe III developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH). The results of this study can provide a theoretical foundation for the treatment of Crowe III DDH in total hip arthroplasty (THA).Methods: Finite element (FE) analysis models were created to reconstruct Crowe III DDH acetabular defects using IAP and MAP. The contact stress and relative micromotion between the acetabular prosthesis and the host bone were analyzed by gradually loading in three increments (210 N, 2100 N, and 4200 N). In addition, five patients with Crowe III DDH who underwent IAP acetabular reconstruction were observed.Results: At the same load, the peak values of IAP contact stress and relative micromotion were lower than those of MAP acetabular reconstruction. Under jogging load, the MAP metal augment’s peak stress exceeded porous tantalum yield strength, and the risk of prosthesis fracture was higher. The peak stress in the bone interface in contact with the MAP during walking and jogging was higher than that in the cancellous bone, while that of IAP was higher than that of the cancellous bone only under jogging load, so the risk of MAP cancellous bone failure was greater. Under jogging load, the relative micromotion of the MAP reconstruction acetabular implant was 45.2 μm, which was not conducive to bone growth, while under three different loads, the relative micromotion of the IAP acetabular implant was 1.5–11.2 μm, all <40 μm, which was beneficial to bone growth. Five patients with IAP acetabular reconstruction were followed up for 11.8 ± 3.4 months, and the Harris score of the last follow-up was 85.4 ± 5.5. The imaging results showed good stability of all prostheses with no adverse conditions observed.Conclusion: Compared with acetabular reconstruction with MAP, IAP has a lower risk of loosening and fracture, as well as a better long-term stability. The application of IAP is an ideal acetabular reconstruction method for Crowe III DDH.