OBJECTIVETo compare differences between Crowe IV developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) with secondary acetabulum and Crowe IV DDH without secondary acetabulum,and determine whether it is necessary to divide Crowe IV DDH into two subtypes.

METHODSFrom June 2007 to May 2015,145 hips of 112 Crowe N patients who underwent total hip arthroplasty (THA) using S-ROM stem were divided into two groups: secondary acetabulum formaton group (group A) and no secondary acetabulum formaton group (group B). In group A,there were 12 females, 96 males,with an average age of (39.38 ± 11.19) years old. In group B, there were 2 females, 35 males, with an average age of (38.19 ± 10.92) years old. All the patients were evaluated by using Harris Hip Score. Radiographic evaluations were made preoperatively and during follow up. The differences between two groups were compared on dislocation height, canal flare index (CFI), subtrochanteric shortening osteotomy (SSTO) usage, pre- and post-operation Harris scores, complications.

RESULTSThe dislocation height for group A was (4.74 ± 1.57) cm, while the dislocation height for group B was (3.12 ± 1.15) cm. Significantly difference was detected between two groups. The CFI for group A was 2.69 ± 0.68, while the CFI for group B was 3.42 ± 0.79, and the significantly difference was detected between two groups. Harris scores were totally improved from 58.18 ± 15.67 preoperatively to 91.20 ± 3.79 post-operatively and the difference was significant. Pre-operative Harris scores was 58.1 ± 15.3 in group A, 58.3 ± 16.9 in group B. Post-operative Harris scores was 91.0 ± 4.1 in group A, 91.0 ± 5.1 in group B. No significant difference was found on Harris scores between A and B preoperatively and post-operatively. Complications of 4 cases peri-prosthesis fracture, 4 cases dislocation and 4 cases nerve injury occur in group A; While only one case dislocation and one case nerve injury occur in group B. No statistical significance was detected.

CONCLUSIONCrowe IV DDH with secondary acetabulum is significantly different from Crowe IV DDH without secondary acetabulum on dislocation height and femoral morphology, which causes the different selections of surgical techniques (SSTO usage or not). These important differences in fundamental parameters indicate the necessity to further divide Crowe IV DDH into IVA and IVB two subtypes.