Osteonecrosis of the Hip: Treatment

In the earliest stage of Osteonecrosis, x-rays will appear normal and an accurate diagnosis can rarely be made without using MRI. It is only after weeks, perhaps months that the patient may develop an ill-defined mottling of the trabecular pattern as the earliest evidence of osteonecrosis that can be seen on a standard x-ray. The mottling seen is not actually dead bone, but the healing response of the living bone to the area of necrosis or tissue death as the body strives to revive and repair the injury.

As the disease continues to progress the dead bone and the new, softer repair bone begins to fail mechanically through a process of microfractures of the bone. If the necrotic area of bone is located in the medullary space, well away from the joint, a classic pattern of dense, serpiginous calcification will begin to be visible on imaging studies. However, if the necrosis occurs in the subchondral bone, which is frequently the case, a different distinctive pattern begins to emerge. That pattern is the classic crescent sign, a visible indication several microfractures that have occurred between the subchondral line and the area of dead bone tissue. As the body continues to attempt to repair and revascularize necrotic bone tissue, subchondral collapse and arthritic processes occur.

A discontinuity in the subchondral line forms a thick, sclerotic zone between the living and the dead as the living bone around the area reacts to the presence of the dead bone tissue. The timeframe for these imaging patterns to emerge are months after the necrosis begins. These image patterns serve as a precursor to the growing damage that is accumulating along the shared surface of the joint. The presence of these microfractures on the bone lead to a rough surface, causing further injury by a process of cartilage breakdown and even painful bone on bone friction. Without early treatment and sometimes despite early aggressive intervention the accumulating damage will require major joint reconstruction (Richardson, 2003).

Staging of a hip injury is the prelude to treatment. Staging systems examine how far the disease has progressed, the degree of bone damage, and the diagnostic imaging evidence. Using the information obtained from the diagnostic process a clinician can map out a plan of care based on the individual characteristics, and damage present. Several formal staging systems are in use. Radiologists and Orthopedic Surgeons rarely use the same system (Lee, Chang, Chao, &, 2002).

The Ficat Classification System can be employed before any evidence of injury is visible. In the preclinical stage, or Stage 0, a suspected diagnosis of hip osteonecrosis can be made based on the knowledge of pre-existing disease in the opposite hip joint. There is a high incidence of bilateral involvement. Almost 50% of the cases of osteonecrosis in one hip eventually progress to the second hip (Levine, Rajadhyaksha, & Mont, 2004).

The Steinberg Staging System, or S-3, is a useful tool in establishing the age and extent of injury from a particularly radiographic viewpoint. The Steinberg System has some advantages over the Ficat Classification System in that it portrays a greater level of detail and a more accurate prediction of outcome.

Nonsurgical treatment of osteonecrosis is limited; but, some interventions are important. This is especially true in the early stages (Ficat Stage 0 or Stage 1) of disease progression. Protected weight bearing is the first and for most non-surgical intervention. Protected weight bearing is the use of stability assistance devices such as a walker. The damaged and fragile bone surface of the hip should be protected from the pressures found in regular articulation and ambulation. This gives the bone an opportunity to repair itself.

Both physical therapy and a form of electrical stimulation for the promotion of bone healing have been found to be helpful adjuncts to the wait-and-see approach. Atmospheric pressure has been used to promote oxygenation of the necrotic area in the effort to aid healing. In one study, this hyperbaric form of conservative approach proved quite successful with Ficat Stage 1 injuries, leading to a 94% success rate of all hips scored as less then Stage 2 on the Ficat scale. Of the hips rated Ficat 2 or greater, 96% needed surgical interventions. This demonstrates the importance of accurate staging of osteonecrosis to determine a treatment path (Montanari & Bronzini, 2003). No matter what supportive interventions are added to conservative treatment, close observation and the use of adequate pain control measures are needed for successful healing to be achieved.

There is a risk to using the conservative approach. Most studies indicate that the risk for disease progression is greater with nonsurgical treament than with surgical intervention (Levine, Rajadhyaksha, & Mont, 2004). It is especially important to weigh out the possibility that the osteonecrotic process could get worse, versus the hope that conservative measures will bring healing.

Unfortunately, the type and severity of damage present in osteonecrosis of the hip usually leads to little recourse except surgical intervention. Preoperative staging, especially when there is a collapse of the femoral head and/or acetabular involvement, determines which of the numerous surgical procedures are best.

For Ficat Stage 2a or earlier stages the best choices are core decompression or cancellous or cortical bone grafting. Trapdoor procedures with allografts are indicated for Ficat Stage 2b or early Stage 3 lesions (Levine, Rajadhyaksha, & Mont, 2004). Trapdoor procedures are an open excision of the necrotic bone by elevation of the cartilage. One approach for Stage 3 disease is an Osteotomy. A more aggressive Arthrodesis and Arthroplasty procedure is also a choice for Ficat Stage 3 or Stage 4. Arthrodesis and arthroplasty are occasionally seen for Stage 1 and Stage 2 (Levine, Rajadhyaksha, & Mont, 2004).

Care following surgical procedures to the hip differs according to the type of procedure. Often, even the most extensive procedures warrant only a few days as a hospital inpatient. The length of stay after a total hip is typically 3 to 5 days after hip surgery (Leopold, 2003).

Physical Therapy is a part of virtually every hip procedure, and often begins before the actual surgical treatment occurs in order to prepare and train the person undergoing surgery in just what will be expected of them afterwards. Physical therapy techniques differ with procedures, and with individual patient tolerances and abilities. They are an integral part of the pre and post surgical recovery process.

With core decompression, patients are asked to ambulate in a non-weight bearing manner for between six to twelve weeks. They are then advised to resume their normal activities as tolerated.

As bone grafting often accompanies core decompression procedures, consideration is often included in the basic expectations for aftercare. Depending on the amount and nature of grafts used, the original non-weight bearing ambulation remains the same: however, resumption of normal activities occurs at a slower pace, and in a progressive manner. Full weight bearing and activities should be resumed within six months of the procedure.

Trapdoor procedures to remove and replace necrotic bone are followed by initial non-weight bearing, twenty percent weight bearing within the first six weeks, fifty percent weight bearing within ten weeks, and then on to full weight bearing as that individual tolerates.

Patients who have more extensive hip procedures get up and around after surgery faster because more diseased bone is replaced. After Osteotomy, protected weight bearing can be initiated soon after surgery and continues for the first six weeks of recovery. After that interval, as that person is able, full independent ambulation can be gained. With arthroplasty, including Total Hip Arthroplasty, weight bearing can resume immediately after surgery, taking into account surgeon preferences and that person’s individual considerations.

All invasive procedures carry risk. Looking at Total Hip Arthroplasty for example, as the most invasive of the treatments for osteonecrosis, the possibilities include infection, blood clots, bleeding, anesthesia risks, and medical risks not directly due to the invasive procedure. Certain hip-specific risks, like infection at the surgical site, are typically less than 1.5 percent for total hip replacement. The complication of dislocation, where the femoral head comes out of joint, is reported to be less than 1 percent. Overall, the frequency of major complications following total hip replacement surgeries is regarded as low (Leopold, 2003).

Later risks associated with total hip surgery include the possibility that the prosthetic device may loosen from the bone and that late infections or dislocations may occur. However, numerous studies have shown that a technically well-performed total hip replacement is more than 90 percent likely to be in service and functioning well more than 10 years after the surgery, and some sources report full function in as much as 80 percent 20 years after surgery (Leopold, 2003), (Total Hip Replacement, 2003).

Osteonecrosis, bone death, of the hip is a painful crippling disease. Once the blood flow to the bone ceases, the living tissue that composes the bone dies. Often, the injury is not noticed until later, when the living tissue around the necrotic area attempts to repair the damage. Sudden pain in groin or hip signals the bone and cartilage destruction caused by microfractures and arthritic changes. Once pain brings attention, diagnostic staging can help map out a plan of treatment specific to the amount of bone injury present.

Nonsurgical treatment can often be used with good success on Ficat Stage 0 or Stage 1 areas of hip avascular necrosis. On higher stages, more invasive procedures such as core decompression and osteotomy show better results. Hemiarthroplasty and Total Hip Arthroplasty are options wherein the bone and cartilage components of the hip socket are replaced with artificial materials. Hip replacement allows renewal of movement in the largest joint of the body and comes as a true blessing to many who otherwise find their lives limited by pain and immobility. Ninety percent or more of patients having hip replacement surgery report having significant pain relief and improved range of motion. Truly, this is a blessing to those significantly affected by the crippling effects of osteonecrosis of the hip.

Alternative Hip Surgeries. Accessed 2005. Total Joint Info. http://www.totaljoints.info/TH_alternative_operations.htm. Accessed January 10, 2005.

Avascular Necrosis. March 2004. Mayo Clinic. http://www.mayoclinic.com. Accessed December 28, 2004.

Bone Graft Alternatives. Accessed 2005. North American Spine Society.

http://www.spine.org/articles/bone_grafts.cfm. Accessed January 10, 2005.

Osteonecrosis. Accessed January 3, 2005. NONF - The National OsteoNecrosis Foundation and the Center for Osteonecrosis Research and Education. http://www.nonf.org/nofbrochure/nonf-brochure.htm.

Total Hip Replacement: Relieve Pain, Improve Mobility. 2003. The Mayo Clinic. http://www.mayoclinic.com. April 18, 2003. Accessed January 13, 2005.

Hoenig H, Siebens H. October 2003. Geriatric Rehabilitation. New Frontiers in Geriatric Research. The American Geriatrics Society. Chapter 12.

http://www.frycomm.com. Accessed January 11, 2005.

Jacobson, J. 2004. Hip Replacement. E-Medicine. http://www.emedicine.com/radio/topic830.htm. Updated July 14, 2004. Accessed January 11, 2005.

Lee M, Chang Y, Chao E and Shin C. Conditions Before Collapse of the Contralateral Hip in Osteonecrosis of the Femoral Head. 2002. Chang Gung Medical Journal. Volume 25. Pages 228-37. Accessed January 10, 2005.

Leopold, S. ed. 2003. What is Hip Replacement? A Review of Total Hip Arthroplasty, Hip Resurfacing, and Minimally-Invasive Hip Surgery. University of Washington. http://www.orthop.washington.edu/faculty/Leopold/hipreplacement/01.

Updated December 29, 2003. Accessed January 13, 2005.

Levine M., Rajadhyaksha A, and Mont M. July 13, 2004. Osteonecrosis. E-Medicine. http://www.emedicine.com/orthoped/topic430.htm. Accessed January 3, 2005.

Lightdale N, Field J, and Danney C. 1996. Wheeless’ Textbook of Orthopaedics. Duke University Medical Center. DataTrace Publishing Company. http://www.wheelessonline.com. 1996.

Mont M, Ragland P, and Garcia E. 2004. Core Decompression of the Femoral Head for Osteonecrosis Using Percutaneous Multiple Small-Diameter Drilling. Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research. One (429):131-138, December 2004.

Montanari M and Bronzini N. 2003. Indication about Hyperbaric Treatment of Aseptic Necrosis of the Femoral Head (NATF). Clinica Ortopedica e Traumatoligica Universita degli Studi di Verona & 1Istituto Iperbarico, OTI Medicale, Vicenza, Italy. http://www.hbot4u.com/bone3.html. Updated February 12, 2003. Accessed January 10, 2005.

Richardson M. 2003. Approaches To Differential Diagnosis In Musculoskeletal Imaging – Osteonecrosis. http://www.rad.washington.edu/mskbook/osteonecrosis.html. Last updated November 19, 2003. Accessed January 4, 2005.

Zipfel G, Guiot B, and Fessler R. 2003. Bone Grafting. Neurosurgery Focus 14(2), 2003. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/449880. Accessed January 10, 2005.