Treatment of Dysplastic Coxarthrosis by Total Arthroplasty
Downloads
Dysplastic coxarthrosis is a progressive degenerative disease of the hip joint that often leads to early disability due to persistent pain, severe limitation of motion, muscle atrophy, and secondary disorders of adjacent joints and the spine. Long-term outcomes of conservative treatment remain unsatisfactory, as residual developmental defects of the hip joint result in femoral head decentration, joint incongruence, and accelerated cartilage degeneration. Total hip arthroplasty has become the most effective method for restoring joint function in adult patients with advanced dysplastic coxarthrosis; however, the choice of surgical tactics remains challenging due to anatomical and biomechanical abnormalities. This study analyzes modern approaches to the surgical treatment of dysplastic coxarthrosis using total hip arthroplasty, emphasizing the importance of an individualized and differentiated strategy. Particular attention is given to preoperative planning, selection of implant fixation methods, acetabular roof reconstruction, pelvic osteotomies, and staged surgical techniques in cases of high congenital hip dislocation. The results indicate that a biomechanically justified approach, including early corrective interventions and appropriately timed arthroplasty, significantly improves functional outcomes, reduces postoperative complications, and prolongs implant survival. The choice of implant design, fixation method, and surgical technique plays a decisive role in achieving stable long-term results in this complex category of patients..
1. Akramov V.R. / Optimization of methods of treatment and rehabilitation of patients with aseptic necrosis of the femoral head. // Abstract of the dissertation. for DSc. Tashkent. 2021; 65 p.
2. Сhen H.T. et al. / Structural and Morselized allografting combined with a cementless cup for acetabular Defects in Revision Total Hip arthroplasty: a 4- to 14-year follow-up. // Biomed Res Int. 2018 feb 4; 2018:2364269. DoI: 10.1155/2018/2364269.
3. Hao Y, Luo D, Wu J, et al. A novel revision system for complex pelvic defects utilizing 3D-printed custom prosthesis. J Orthop Translat. 2021;31:102-109. doi: 10.1016/j.jot.2021.09.006.
4. Haynes J.A. et al. / Contemporary surgical indications and referral trends in revision total hip arthroplasty: A 100-year review. // J Arthroplasty. 2016;31:622-625.
5. Ilyin A.A. and others. / The use of mathematical modeling to predict the biomechanics of hip implants. // Bulletin of traumatology and orthopedics. N.N. Priorov 2009;16(3):7–13.
6. Ilyin A.A. and others. / Substantiation of the design and investigation of the biomechanical behavior of the wedge-shaped leg of the cement fixation of the hip joint endoprosthesis. // Bulletin of Traumatology and Orthopedics. 2005; No.3:3-10.
7. Irismetov M.E., Fozilov Kh.T. Khakimov Sh.K., Safarov N.B. / Associated applicance of artroscopic debridement and proximal fibular osteotomy at the treatment of patients with deformic artritis of knee. // Genij Ortopedii. 2022. Vol. 28, no. 6. P. 768-773. doi.org/10.18019/1028-4427-2022-28-6-768-773
8. Klemt C. et al. Can machine learning models predict failure of revision THA? – Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2023;143(6):2805–2812.
9. Klemt C. et al. ML algorithms for predicting PROMs after TJA. – Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2023;143(4):2235–2245.
10. Lychagin AV, Rosenberg N, Gritsyuk AA. Evaluation of the potential complications of surgical wound drainage in primary total hip arthroplasty: a prospective controlled double-blind study. Hip Int. 2021;31(5):589-592. doi: 10.1177/1120700020941749.
11. Petrov A.B., Ruzanov V.I., Mashukov T.S. / Long-term results of surgical treatment of patients with acetabulum fractures. // Genius orthopedics. 2020;26(3): 300-305. doi: 10.18019/1028-4427-2020-26-3-300-305 25.
12. Reynaud E.V. Optimization of treatment of patients after hip replacement based on prediction and prevention of hemocoagulation disorders: // Abstract of the dissertation of the Candidate of Medical Sciences. – Perm, 2013. – 24 p.
13. Siu K.T. et al. Risk factors associated with PJI after TKA: a retrospective study of 2543 cases. – Hong Kong Med J. 2018;24(2):152–157.
14. Tikhilov R.M., Javadov A.A., Denisov A.O. et al. / Analysis of the economic efficiency of using individual and serial acetabulum structures in revision hip arthroplasty. // Genius orthopedics. 2022;28(2):234-240. doi: 10.18019/1028-4427-2022-28-2-234-240.
15. Udintseva M.Yu. and co-authors. / Primary and revision hip replacement with replacement of acetabulum defects. // Genius orthopedics. 2024;30(6):797-810. doi.org/10.18019/1028-4427-2024-30-6-797-810.
16. Valiev E.Yu. and others. / The use of modern technologies in the treatment of fractures of the proximal femur in the older age group. // Problems of biology and medicine. 2022;6.1(141):84–90.
17. Valiev E.Yu. and others. / The effect of osteoporosis and the method of fixation on the results of hip replacement. // Problems of biology and medicine. 2022;6.1: pp. 87-89.
18. Voronov A.A. and others. The problem of perioperative prognosis of purulent complications of hip and knee arthroplasty. // Genius orthopedics. Part I. 2020. – No. 1. – pp. 10-18.
19. Voronov A.A. and others. / Prediction of endoprosthetics complications: risk factors and their modification. // Genius orthopedics, 2020, No. 1. pp. 19-25.
20. Yeganeh M.H. et al. Rheumatoid Arthritis, DMARDs, and PJI: What Does a Surgeon Need to Know? – J Arthroplasty. 2018;33(4):1258–1264.
