Background
Osteonecrosis (ON) of the femoral head is a painful, progressive, and potentially debilitating disease, which affects patients in their third to fifth decades of life [
1-
3]. A variety of risk factors have been identified in the literature including trauma, alcohol abuse, chronic corticosteroid use, and coagulation disorders [
4]. Although ischemia, direct cellular toxicity and altered differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells were postulated mechanisms of pathogenesis, the exact etiology and pathogenesis are still not certain [
3,
5].
Early diagnosis before collapse occurs is important in order to prevent subsequent collapse and osteoarthritis. The diagnosis requires a high index of suspicion, especially in the earliest stages. Deep groin pain is the most common early symptom. Limitation of range of motion (ROM) (especially internal rotation) is mostly evident at later stages. In general, the diagnosis is made by radiography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). MRI seems to be the best diagnostic tool with the highest sensitivity and specificity [
6,
7]. Moreover, MRI is the mainstay of all classification systems to stage ON, which currently guide treatment decisions and have prognostic importance. The two most commonly used classification systems are Ficat & Arlet, Ficat and Steinberg University of Pennsylvania [
8-
11]. The extent of the necrotic portion of the femoral head, which was also found to be a prognostic factor for collapse, could be measured with modified Kerboul method [
12].
The treatment has been mostly based on the stage, extent, location, and cause of the ON together with the age of the patient. Currently, there are two main approaches for treatment: non-operative and operative. Both aim to relieve pain, to improve function, and to prevent progression to some extent. A variety of modalities have been described for the non-operative management of hip osteonecrosis in the literature including non-weight bearing, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, extra-corporeal shock wave treatment, pulsed electromagnetic therapy, and hyperbaric oxygen [
13-
21]. Many of these conservative treatments may only have a role in the early pre-collapse stages of the disease, with questionable limited success.
Currently, surgical treatment of ON of the femoral head includes the following: percutaneous drilling, core decompression with or without bone grafting, biological additions (stem cells, platelet rich plasma etc.), vascularized bone grafting, tantalum rods, proximal femoral osteotomies, and hip arthroplasties [
22-
32]. Although it seems that the most promising results were obtained with total hip arthroplasty, the optimal treatment for ON of the femoral head has not yet been established especially in young and middle-aged people [
3,
4].
The aim of this study was to report preliminary clinical outcomes of focal resurfacing implantation for ON of the femoral head as an alternative option of joint-preserving surgery of the hip. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first case series regarding the use of an alternative focal anatomic-resurfacing implant (HemiCAP®) for ON of the femoral head.
Discussion
The most important result of this study was that the use of the focal anatomic-resurfacing implant for the treatment of osteonecrosis of the femoral head yielded successful preliminary clinical results in seven hips of five patients at a minimum of two years following their surgical procedure. In addition, to the best of our knowledge, this study is the first case series related with the use of this alternative focal anatomic-resurfacing implant for this specific indication.
In general, the management of osteonecrosis of the femoral head consists of non-surgical and surgical methods. Non-surgical modalities such as non-weight bearing, pharmacological (bisphosphonates, anticoagulants, lipid-lowering agents, vasodilators), extra-corporeal shock wave treatment, pulsed electromagnetic therapy, and hyperbaric oxygen may have a role only in the early pre-collapse stages of the disease, with a questionable limited success [
13-
21].
Surgical methods can also be subdivided into two major groups: joint preserving options and total hip arthroplasty. Joint preserving options include the following: percutaneous drilling, core decompression with or without bone grafting, biological procedures (bone marrow stimulation or microfracture, mesenchymal stem cells), vascularized bone grafting, tantalum rods, proximal femoral osteotomies, and hip arthroplasties [
22-
32].
The most commonly performed surgical method is probably core decompression, which aims to decrease intraosseous pressure and to ameliorate the blood flow to the necrotic area and subsequent healing by creeping substitution. Despite these aims and its use at earlier stages of the disease process, the rate of further additional surgery requirements was reported as high as 80% [
13,
34,
35]. The clinical results of this option had wide variations from 0% to 91% [
36]. Moreover, Lee et al. found that intertrochanteric osseous pressure was significantly higher after multiple drilling and that these patients had poorer outcomes [
37]. Interestingly, this result raises the question of whether the increase in pressure in the intertrochanteric region after core decompression increases the severity of the disease progression or not.
Another viable surgical option is free vascularized bone grafting, which has been advised for earlier stages, before collapse [
3,
35]. Although successful results were reported at a longer term [
27,
38,
39], it is a highly technical and demanding procedure and is associated with significant donor site morbidities and progression of the osteonecrotic lesion.
When there is a collapse of the lesion, treatment becomes more difficult. Although it seems that the most promising results, especially at late stages, are reported with total hip arthroplasty, the optimal surgical treatment for ON of the femoral head has not been established, especially in the younger patients [
3,
4]. The first is the longevity of the implant and is a definite concern [
40]. In addition, in contrast to its successful use in patients with primary coxarthrosis, THA was found to have a higher rate of failure in patients with osteoarthritis secondary to osteonecrosis [
41,
42]. Moreover, the results of THA were reported to be poor in the young age group, which these patients usually are [
43-
46]. In this context, the importance of hip-preserving surgery has also been stressed in the last decade recently [
47]. Under the light of these findings, an alternative treatment option is required in this young age group. Although our study exhibited preliminary results at a mean follow-up of postoperative 26 months, the early results were promising, and we anticipate a better solution in young patients compared with THA, with the advantage of postponing the age for THA. As the number of selected younger patients - with focal ON of the femoral head - who will be treated with the hip HemiCAP® increase, the results will be easier to compare with those of THA.
Recently, short-term successful results were obtained with resurfacing arthroplasty in the treatment of osteonecrosis of the femoral head [
48]. This procedure preserves bone stock in the femoral head, without compromising subsequent conversion to THA. It can also be used at postcollapse stages in young patients with good bone stock [
3]. But, due to reported high revision rates to THA, mostly because of femoral neck fracture, and due to effects of metallic wear debris, most surgeons do not prefer resurfacing arthroplasty for the treatment of ON of the femoral head [
49-
51].
Compared with previously discussed alternative techniques, the hip HemiCAP® system has some advantages. At first, preoperative planning is not as detailed as total hip arthroplasty. It is a femoral head and joint-preserving surgery in which the patient’s own femoral head anatomy is protected to a maximal extent with little bony resection and can be used even in cases of collapse. After the entire exposure of the femoral head, removal of the necrotic area is followed by replacement of the defect by a two-part implant fixed in position with a large threaded screw. This implant matches each patient’s anatomy and femoral head contour. They are suitable for young and middle-aged patients with focal lesions. Another advantage is that in case of progression of osteoarthritis, or implant failure or fracture at any time, there is always a chance to revise to primary total hip arthroplasty.
Only four case reports were published in the literature to our knowledge of the use of HemiCAP® for femoral head pathologies. In the first study, Jäger et al. reported successful results in a 22-year-old female patient having traumatic osteonecrosis of the femoral head, with one-year follow-up [
52]. In a second study, partial resurfacing was performed successfully following a subcapital femoral varus osteotomy in a 16-year-old male patient, with a two-year follow-up [
53]. In a study of Mahmud et al., a 24-year-old male with osteochondral defect of the femoral head was successfully treated with HemiCAP®, with five-years follow-up [
54]. Recently, a patient having an osteochondral lesion of the hip, who was treated with partial femoral resurfacing, has been reported with the longest follow-up of six years [
55].
To our knowledge, the present study is the first report of a consecutive case series with the use of HemiCAP® for the treatment of focal ON of the femoral head. But, there are some limitations of this study, which should be discussed. Firstly, this study compromises a small number of patients, but this is not a common condition and large studies are difficult to do to collect enough cases. Another limitation is the retrospective evaluation of the prospectively collected data. A prospective, multi-center study evaluating this procedure over a long term would give more definitive results. However, the procedure seems to have some promise in the treatment of osteonecrosis with advanced stages and collapse or as a salvage of other failed procedures. The biggest advantage is that the anatomy is preserved so that future procedures are not compromised.
Competing interests
AM reports his Arthrosurface royalties. All the other authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors’ contributions
OB has made substantial contributions to conception and design, contributed to the acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, carrying out of the surgeries, drafting of the manuscript and carrying out of its revision and has given the final approval of the version to be published. MND helped draft the manuscript and revised it critically for important intellectual content, has participated in its design and coordination, and has given the final approval of the version to be published. MY and NK helped draft the manuscript. AM has made substantial contributions to conception and design, helped draft the manuscript and revised it critically for important intellectual content, has participated in its design and coordination, and has given the final approval of the version to be published. All authors read and approved the final version of the final manuscript.