The augment-and-modular-cage revision system for reconstruction of severe acetabular defects—two-year clinical and radiographic results
- 51 Downloads
Acetabular revision of failed total hip arthroplasty (THA) is often associated with severe bone loss. Therefore, a variety of revision implant systems has been developed during recent years, with the augment-and-modular-cage system being one of the newest additions to this portfolio. Together with biologic downsizing by means of impaction bone grafting, this uncemented system promises a high modularity and versatility to treat all acetabular defects up to Paprosky types IIIa and IIIb without pelvic discontinuity. The aim of the present study was to evaluate first short-term results of its clinical application, both clinical functional and patient-reported as well as radiographic.
Forty-four patients (28 female, 16 male, mean age 70.9 ± 11.5 years) could be followed for a mean of 26 ± 10 months after acetabular revision with a novel augment-and-modular-cage system. Indications for revision included aseptic loosening (68%), septic loosening (16%), or others (16%) with bone loss Paprosky IIa up to IIIb without discontinuity. The modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) served as a primary outcome parameter. In addition, a number of patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) were collected including the Short Form 36 (SF-36), Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS), and Visual Analogue Scale for Hip Pain (VAS Hip) as well as overall satisfaction. Radiographic changes between the pre- and postoperative center of rotation (COR) and various criteria of implant failure served as secondary outcome parameters.
No patients were lost to follow-up. Two implant-associated complications (partial flange breakage) without a need for revision surgery were detected, which represent a failure rate of 4.5%. Functional outcome as measured by mHHS increased from 49.4 ± 2.9 pre-operatively to 74.4 ± 3.1 at the latest follow-up (p < 0.001). PROMs showed significant improvements in all pain-related categories, while other quality-of-life measurements only exhibited positive tendencies towards improvement. VAS Hip significantly improved from 6.5 ± 0.7 pre-operatively to 2.2 ± 0.6 at the latest follow-up (p < 0.001). Radiographic evaluation showed that reconstruction of the COR was possible, referenced to the contralateral side. The COR could be lateralized by 5.0 mm (n.s.) and caudalized by 10.3 mm (p < 0.001) comparing pre-operative and post-operative states, with complete osseointegration in 95% of the cases.
Treatment with the augment-and-modular-cage system significantly improved clinical functional and patient-reported outcomes in cases of acetabular revision after failed THA. In addition, a good reconstruction of the COR could also be achieved. Therefore, this highly modular system can be considered as an effective treatment option in almost all cases of acetabular bone loss except for those of pelvic discontinuity. It offers the unique possibility of intra-operative implant customization according to the existing bone defect and host bone quality.
KeywordsHip Acetabulum Acetabular revision surgery Modular cup arthroplasty Augment-and-modular-cage Uncemented fixation
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. For this type of study, formal consent is not required. All data obtained is part of in-house quality assessment in accordance with National Register procedures. Additional approval for this study was obtained from the institutional review board of our hospital (study no. 369/17).
- 6.Kosashvili Y, Backstein D, Safir O et al (2009) Acetabular revision using an anti-protrusion (ilio-ischial) cage and trabecular metal acetabular component for severe acetabular bone loss associated with pelvic discontinuity. J Bone Joint Surg Br 91:870–876. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.91B7.22181 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 7.Beckmann NA, Bitsch RG, Gondan M et al (2018) Comparison of the stability of three fixation techniques between porous metal acetabular components and augments. Bone Joint Res 7:282–288. https://doi.org/10.1302/2046-3758.74.BJR-2017-0198.R1 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 16.Wirtz DC, Wacker M, Jaenisch M, Roessler PP (2018) Acetabular revision arthroplasty with a novel cementless “augment-and-modular-cage” system (MRS-C): surgical technique and first clinical results. Oper Orthop Traumatol:1–10Google Scholar
- 20.Söderman P, Malchau H (2001) Is the Harris hip score system useful to study the outcome of total hip replacement? Clin Orthop Relat Res:189–197Google Scholar
- 24.DeLee JG, Charnley J (1976) Radiological demarcation of cemented sockets in total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res:20–32Google Scholar
- 30.Mahmoud AN, Sundberg M, Flivik G (2017) Comparable results with porous metal augments in combination with either cemented or uncemented cups in revision hip arthroplasty: an analysis of one hundred forty-seven revisions at a mean of five years. J Arthroplast 32:1612–1617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2016.12.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 35.Berry DJ (2004) Antiprotrusio cages for acetabular revision. Clin Orthop Relat Res:106–112Google Scholar