The Delta of Correction: a novel,more reliable variable than limb-length discrepancy at predicting outcome after total hip arthroplasty

Abstract

Background:

Leg-length discrepancy (LLD) is a frequent and recurring issue after total hip arthroplasty (THA). It can lead to discomfort and litigation due to the patient’s perception of this inequality.

Purpose:

The aim of this study was to evaluate the functional impact of postoperative LLD and length correction in patients after primary THA. We hypothesised that clinical outcomes are inversely correlated to length correction and residual discrepancy.

Methods:

In a prospective cohort, we included 121 patients undergoing unilateral primary THA. Patients were categorised into 3 groups based on their residual LLD using routine EOS imaging; Shorter (<-5 mm); Equal (-5 mm to +5 mm); and Longer (>+5 mm). Delta of Correction (DC) was defined as the difference between pre- and postoperative discrepancy measured on EOS imaging. Functional scores (HHS, Postel Merle d’Aubigné, and WOMAC) were measured preoperatively and at last follow-up. The average follow-up was 24 months. We evaluated the clinical and radiographic outcomes regarding the residual LLD and DC.

Results:

All patients had improvement in their functional scores at last follow-up. There was no difference in clinical outcomes, regardless of preoperative or residual LLD. The highest scores were found in the population with the smallest variations (DC -5 to +5 mm, HHS 96). Conversely, poorer results were found in shortened patients (DC <-5 mm), HHS 86, and lengthened patients, corrected by > 15 mm, with HHS of 83, p < 0.005. Patient perception of postoperative LLD correlated with the DC (p = 0.004).

Conclusion:

The DC measurement is a more effective assessment than arthroplasty.

Keywords

Clinical outcomes hip leg length discrepancy total hip replacement

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

O’Brien

Kernohan

Fitzpatrick

, et al. Perception of imposed leg length inequality in normal subjects. Hip Int 2010; 20: 505–511.

Sykes

Hill

Orr

, et al. Patients’ perception of leg length discrepancy post total hip arthroplasty. Hip Int 2015; 25: 452–456.

Beard

Palan

Andrew

, et al. Incidence and effect of leg length discrepancy following total hip arthroplasty. Physiotherapy 2008; 94: 91–96.

Bourne

Rorabeck

CH.

Soft tissue balancing: the hip. J Arthroplasty 2002; 17(Suppl. 1): 17–22.

Wylde

Whitehouse

Taylor

, et al. Prevalence and functional impact of patient-perceived leg length discrepancy after hip replacement. Int Orthop 2009; 33: 905–909.

Konyves

Bannister

GC.

The importance of leg length discrepancy after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2005; 87: 155–157.

Woolson

Hartford

Sawyer

Results of a method of leg-length equalization for patients undergoing primary total hip replacement. J Arthroplasty 1999; 14: 159–164.

Deschênes

Charron

Beaudoin

, et al. Diagnostic imaging of spinal deformities: reducing patients radiation dose with a new slot-scanning X-ray imager. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010; 35: 989–994.

Harris

WH.

Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1969; 51: 737–755.

10.

Bellamy

Buchanan

Goldsmith

, et al. Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol 1988; 15: 1833–1840.

11.

Plaass

Clauss

Ochsner

, et al. Influence of leg length discrepancy on clinical results after total hip arthroplasty–a prospective clinical trial. Hip Int 2011; 21: 441–449.

12.

Ranawat

Rao

Rodriguez

, et al. Correction of limb-length inequality during total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2001; 16: 715–720.

13.

Röder

Vogel

Burri

, et al. Total hip arthroplasty: leg length inequality impairs functional outcomes and patient satisfaction. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2012; 13: 95.

14.

Mahmood

Mukka

Crnalic

, et al. The influence of leg length discrepancy after total hip arthroplasty on function and quality of life: a prospective cohort study. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30: 1638–1642.

15.

Wylde

Whitehouse

Taylor

, et al. Prevalence and functional impact of patient-perceived leg length discrepancy after hip replacement. Int Orthop 2009; 33: 905–909.

16.

Woolson

Hartford

Sawyer

Results of a method of leg-length equalization for patients undergoing primary total hip replacement. J Arthroplasty 1999; 14: 159–164.

17.

Chiron

Demoulin

Wytrykowski

, et al. Radiation dose and magnification in pelvic X-ray: EOS™ imaging system versus plain radiographs. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2017; 103: 1155–1159.

18.

Lazennec

Folinais

Florequin

, et al. Does patients’ perception of leg length after total hip arthroplasty correlate with anatomical leg length? J Arthroplasty 2018; 33: 1562–1566.

19.

McWilliams

Jin

, et al. Unilateral total hip replacement patients with symptomatic leg length inequality have abnormal hip biomechanics during walking. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2015; 30: 513–519.

20.

White

Dougall

TW.

Arthroplasty of the hip. Leg length is not important. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2002; 84: 335–338.

21.

Edeen

Sharkey

Alexander

AH.

Clinical significance of leg-length inequality after total hip arthroplasty. Am J Orthop 1995; 24: 347–351.

22.

Nakanowatari

Suzukamo

Suga

, et al. True or apparent leg length discrepancy: which is a better predictor of short-term functional outcomes after total hip arthroplasty? J Geriatr Phys Ther 2013; 36: 169–174.

23.

Lazennec

Brusson

Dominique

, et al. Offset and anteversion reconstruction after cemented and uncemented total hip arthroplasty: an evaluation with the low-dose EOS system comparing two- and three-dimensional imaging. Int Orthop 2015; 39: 1259–1267.