Advertisement

Reconstruction of failed acetabular component in the presence of severe acetabular bone loss: a systematic review

  • A. Volpin
  • S. Konan
  • C. Biz
  • R. J. Tansey
  • F. S. Haddad
Review

Abstract

Acetabular revision especially in the presence of severe bone loss is challenging. There is a paucity of literature critiquing contemporary techniques of revision acetabular reconstruction and their outcomes. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the literature and to report clinical outcomes and survival of contemporary acetabular revision arthroplasty techniques (tantalum metal shells, uncemented revision jumbo shells, reinforced cages and rings, oblong shells and custom-made triflange constructs). Full-text papers and those with an abstract in English published from January 2001 to January 2016 were identified through international databases. A total of 50 papers of level IV scientific evidence, comprising 2811 hips in total, fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included. Overall, patients had improved outcomes irrespective of the technique of reconstruction as documented by postoperative hip scores. Our pooled analysis suggests that oblong cups components had a lower failure rate compared with other different materials considered in this review. Custom-made triflange cups had one of highest failure rates. However, this may reflect the complexity of revisions and severity of bone loss. The most common postoperative complication reported in all groups was dislocation. This review confirms successful acetabular reconstructions using diverse techniques depending on the type of bone loss and highlights key features and outcomes of different techniques. In particular, oblong cups and tantalum shells have successful survivorship.

Keywords

Acetabular revision surgery Paprosky classification Hip revision surgery Acetabular defects Pelvic discontinuity 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

A. Volpin, S. Konan, C. Biz, R. J. Tansey declare that they have no conflict of interest. F. S. Haddad reports grants from Stryker and grants from Smith and Nephew, outside the submitted work.

References

  1. 1.
    Kurtz SM, Ong KL, Lau E, Bozic KJ (2014) Impact of the economic downturn on total joint replacement demand in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am 96A(8):624–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pivec R, Johnson AJ, Mears SC, Mont MA (2012) Hip arthroplasty. Lancet 380(9855):1768–1777CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jain S, Grogan RJ, Giannoudis PV (2014) Options for managing severe acetabular bone loss in revision hip arthroplasty. A systematic review. Hip Int 24(2):109–122CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baauw M, van Hooff ML, Spruit M (2016) Current construct options for revision of large acetabular defects: a systematic review. JBJS Rev 4(11).  https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.RVW.15.00119
  5. 5.
    Nieminen J, Pakarinen TK, Laitinen M (2013) Orthopaedic reconstruction of complex pelvic bone defects. Evaluation of various treatment methods. Scand J Surg 102(1):36–41CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    van Tulder M, Furlan A, Bombardier C, Bouter L, Collabora EBC (2003) Updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group. Spine 28(12):1290–1299PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Malmivaara A, Koes BW, Bouter LM, van Tulder MW (2006) Applicability and clinical relevance of results in randomized controlled trials: the Cochrane review on exercise therapy for low back pain as an example. Spine 31(13):1405–1409CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Korim MT, Esler CNA, Ashford RU (2014) Systematic review of proximal femoral arthroplasty for non-neoplastic conditions. J Arthroplast 29(11):2117–2121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Berasi CC, Berend KR, Adams JB, Ruh EL Jr, Lombardi AV (2015) Are custom triflange acetabular components effective for reconstruction of catastrophic bone loss? Clin Orthop Relat Res 473(2):528–535CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wind MA Jr, Swank ML, Sorger JI (2013) Short-term results of a custom triflange acetabular component for massive acetabular bone loss in revision THA. Orthopedics 36(3):e260–e265CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Colen S, Harake R, De Haan J, Mulier M (2013) A modified custom-made triflanged acetabular reconstruction ring (MCTARR) for revision hip arthroplasty with severe acetabular defects. Acta Orthop Belg 79(1):71–75PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Taunton MJ, Fehring TK, Edwards P, Bernasek T, Holt GE, Christie MJ (2012) Pelvic discontinuity treated with custom triflange component: a reliable option. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470(2):428–434CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    DeBoer DK, Christie MJ, Brinson MF, Morrison JC (2007) Revision total hip arthroplasty for pelvic discontinuity. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89(4):835–840PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dennis DA (2003) Management of massive acetabular defects in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 18(3 Suppl 1):121–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Christie MJ, Barrington SA, Brinson MF, Ruhling ME, DeBoer DK (2001) Bridging massive acetabular defects with the triflange cup: 2- to 9-year results. Clin Orthop Relat Res 393:216–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    von Roth P, Abdel MP, Harmsen WS, Berry DJ (2015) Uncemented jumbo cups for revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 97A(4):284–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gustke KA, Levering MF, Miranda MA (2014) Use of jumbo cups for revision of acetabulae with large bony defects. J Arthroplast 29(1):199–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lachiewicz PE, Soileau ES (2013) Fixation, survival, and dislocation of jumbo acetabular components in revision hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 95A(6):543–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bilgen OF, Bilgen MS, Oncan T, Danis M (2012) Acetabular reconstruction by impacted cancellous allografts in cementless total hip arthroplasty revision. Acta Orthop Traumatol 46(2):120–125Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fan CY, Chen WM, Lee OK, Huang CK, Chiang CC, Chen TH (2008) Acetabular revision arthroplasty using jumbo cups: an experience in Asia. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 128(8):809–813CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wedemeyer C, Neuerburg C, Heep H, von Knoch F, von Knoch M, Loer F et al (2008) Jumbo cups for revision of acetabular defects after total hip arthroplasty: a retrospective review of a case series. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 128(6):545–550CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Patel JV, Masonis JL, Bourne RB, Rorabeck CH (2003) The fate of cementless jumbo cups in revision hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 18(2):129–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    St’astny E, Trc T, Handl M, Kos P, Kautzner J, Philippou T et al (2014) Mid-term results of revision total hip arthroplasty using the oval-shaped uncemented Trc-Cingr cup. Int Orthop 38(5):935–940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Garcia-Rey E, Fernandez-Fernandez R, Duran D, Madero R (2013) Reconstruction of the rotation center of the hip after oblong cups in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Traumatol Off J Ital Soc Orthop Traumatol 14(1):39–49Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Desai AS, Dramis A, Board TN, Hekal W, Farhan MJ (2012) Acetabular revision surgery with the uncemented oblong BOFOR Cup–early to midterm results. Hip Int J Clin Exp Res Hip Pathol Therapy 22(3):280–285Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Koster G, Rading S (2009) Revision of failed acetabular components utilizing a cementless oblong cup: an average 9-year follow-up study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 129(5):603–608CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Civinini R, Capone A, Carulli C, Villano M, Gusso MI (2008) Acetabular revisions using a cementless oblong cup: five to ten year results. Int Orthop 32(2):189–193CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kmiec K, Dorman T, Andrzej G, Synder M, Kozlowski P, Sibinski M (2015) Early results of revision acetabular cup using antiprotrusio reconstruction rings and allografts. Indian J Orthop 49(3):317–322CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mao YQ, Xu C, Xu JW, Li HW, Liu FX, Yu DG et al (2015) The use of customized cages in revision total hip arthroplasty for Paprosky type III acetabular bone defects. Int Orthop 39(10):2023–2030CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Amenabar T, Rahman WA, Hetaimish BM, Kuzyk PR, Safir OA, Gross AE (2016) Promising mid-term results with a cup-cage construct for large acetabular defects and pelvic discontinuity. Clin Orthop Relat Res 474(2):408–414CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Regis D, Sandri A, Bonetti I (2014) Acetabular reconstruction with the burch-schneider antiprotrusio cage and bulk allografts: minimum 10-year follow-up results. Biomed Res Int 2014:194076CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Philippe R, Gosselin O, Sedaghatian J, Dezaly C, Roche O, Sirveaux F et al (2012) Acetabular reconstruction using morselized allograft and a reinforcement ring for revision arthroplasty with Paprosky type II and III bone loss: survival analysis of 95 hips after 5 to 13 years. Orthop Traumatol Surg 98(2):129–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lamo-Espinosa J, Duart Clemente J, Diaz-Rada P, Pons-Villanueva J, Valenti-Nin JR (2013) The Burch-Schneider antiprotrusio cage: medium follow-up results. Musculoskelet Surg 97(1):31–37CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Jones L, Grammatopoulos G, Singer G (2012) The Burch-Schneider cage: 9-year survival in Paprosky type 3 acetabular defects. Clinical and radiological follow-up. Hip Int 22(1):28–34CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Schneider L, Philippot R, Boyer B, Farizon F (2011) Revision total hip arthroplasty using a reconstruction cage device and a cemented dual mobility cup. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res OTSR 97(8):807–813CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Akiyama H, Yamamoto K, Tsukanaka M, Kawanabe K, Otsuka H, So K et al (2011) Revision total hip arthroplasty using a Kerboull-type acetabular reinforcement device with bone allograft: minimum 4.5-year follow-up results and mechanical analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 93(9):1194–1200CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hori J, Yasunaga Y, Yamasaki T, Yoshida T, Oshima S, Yamasaki K et al (2012) Mid-term results of acetabular reconstruction using a Kerboull-type acetabular reinforcement device. Int Orthop 36(1):23–26CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Coscujuela-Mana A, Angles F, Tramunt C, Casanova X (2010) Burch-Schneider antiprotrusio cage for acetabular revision: a 5- to 13-year follow-up study. Hip Int J Clin Exp Res Hip Pathol Therapy 20(Suppl 7):S112–S118Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Regis D, Magnan B, Sandri A, Bartolozzi P (2008) Long-term results of anti-protrusion cage and massive allografts for the management of periprosthetic acetabular bone loss. J Arthroplast 23(6):826–832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Schlegel UJ, Bitsch RG, Pritsch M, Clauss M, Mau H, Breusch SJ (2006) Mueller reinforcement rings in acetabular revision: outcome in 164 hips followed for 2–17 years. Acta Orthop 77(2):234–241CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kosashvili Y, Backstein D, Safir O, Lakstein D, Gross AE (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(7):870–876CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Lachiewicz PF, Soileau ES (2010) Tantalum components in difficult acetabular revisions. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468(2):454–458CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Abolghasemian M, Tangsataporn S, Sternheim A, Backstein D, Safir O, Gross AE (2013) Combined trabecular metal acetabular shell and augment for acetabular revision with substantial bone loss: a mid-term review. Bone Joint J 95B(2):166–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Borland WS, Bhattacharya R, Holland JP, Brewster NT (2012) Use of porous trabecular metal augments with impaction bone grafting in management of acetabular bone loss early to medium-term results. Acta Orthop 83(4):347–352CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Davies JH, Laflamme GY, Delisle J, Fernandes J (2011) Trabecular metal used for major bone loss in acetabular hip revision. J Arthroplast 26(8):1245–1250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Del Gaizo DJ, Kancherla V, Sporer SM, Paprosky WG (2012) Tantalum augments for Paprosky IIIA defects remain stable at midterm followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470(2):395–401CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Elganzoury I, Bassiony AA (2013) Early results of trabecular metal augment for acetabular reconstruction in revision hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop Belg 79(5):530–535PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Fernandez-Fairen M, Murcia A, Blanco A, Merono A, Murcia A, Ballester J (2010) Revision of failed total hip arthroplasty acetabular cups to porous tantalum components a 5-year follow-up study. J Arthroplast 25(6):865–872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Flecher X, Paprosky W, Grillo JC, Aubaniac JM, Argenson JN (2010) Do tantalum components provide adequate primary fixation in all acetabular revisions? Orthop Traumatol Surg 96(3):235–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Grappiolo G, Loppini M, Longo UG, Traverso F, Mazziotta G, Denaro V (2015) Trabecular metal augments for the management of Paprosky type III defects without pelvic discontinuity. J Arthroplast 30(6):1024–1029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Kim WY, Greidanus NV, Duncan CP, Masri BA, Garbuz DS (2008) Porous tantalum uncemented acetabular shells in revision total hip replacement: two to four year clinical and radiographic results. Hip Int 18(1):17–22CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Lakstein D, Backstein D, Safir O, Kosashvili Y, Gross AE (2009) Trabecular metal (TM) cups for acetabular defects with 50% or less host bone contact. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467(9):2318–2324CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Molicnik A, Hanc M, Recnik G, Krajnc Z, Rupreht M, Fokter SK (2014) Porous tantalum shells and augments for acetabular cup revisions. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol Orthop Traumatol 24(6):911–917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Simon JP, Bellemans J (2009) Clinical and radiological evaluation of modular trabecular metal acetabular cups short-term results in 64 hips. Acta Orthop Belg 75(5):623–630PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Unger AS, Lewis RJ, Gruen T (2005) Evaluation of a porous tantalum uncemented acetabular cup in revision total hip arthroplasty. Clinical and radiological results of 60 hips. J Arthroplast 20(8):1002–1009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Van Kleunen JP, Lee GC, Lementowski PW, Nelson CL, Garino JP (2009) Acetabular revisions using trabecular metal cups and augments. J Arthroplast 24(6):64–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Weeden SH, Schmidt RH (2007) The use of tantalum porous metal implants for Paprosky 3A and 3B defects. J Arthroplast 22(6):151–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Whitehouse MR, Masri BA, Duncan CP, Garbuz DS (2015) Continued good results with modular trabecular metal augments for acetabular defects in hip arthroplasty at 7 to 11 years. Clin Orthop Relat Res 473(2):521–527CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Volpin
    • 1
  • S. Konan
    • 1
  • C. Biz
    • 2
  • R. J. Tansey
    • 1
  • F. S. Haddad
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Trauma and OrthopaedicsUniversity College London HospitalLondonUK
  2. 2.Department of Trauma and OrthopaedicsUniversity of PadovaPaduaItaly

Personalised recommendations