Advertisement

Biological Repair of Acetabular Bone Defects and Cup Migration After Impaction Bone Grafting in Total Hip Arthroplasty

  • Eduardo García-Rey
  • Eduardo García-Cimbrelo
Chapter

Abstract

The rational way to reconstruct acetabular bone defects in revision surgery is to use the most biological way possible to restore and improve the bone stock through bone grafts, which will also form a solid foundation for further revisions, especially in young patients. This rationale has led us to apply impacting bone grafting with a cemented cup in many patients. This is a reliable technique for the treatment of large acetabular defects. However, proximal and medial migration of the cemented cup has been reported in some cases in all series. It could be due to a some difference in bone remodelling when cemented fixation is used in conjunction with bone impaction grafting. When a graft is well incorporated and the cup fails for mechanical reasons, the incorporation of the earlier graft should improve the bone stock situation and facilitate subsequent revisions. Consequently, we also recommend the use of impaction bone grafting in complex acetabular revision surgery to facilitate future revisions.

Keywords

Impacting bone grafting Biological repair acetabular defects 

References

  1. 1.
    Colo E, Rijnen WH-C, Schreurs BW. The biological approach in acetabular revision surgery: impaction bone grafting and a cemented cup. Hip Int. 2015;25(4):361–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    von Roth P, Abdel MP, Harmsen WS, Berry DJ. Uncemented jumbo cups for revision total hip arthroplasty: a concise followup, at a mean of twenty years, of a previous report. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015;97(4):284–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lie SA, Havelin LI, Furnes ON, Engesaeter LB, Vollset SE. Failure rates for 4762 revision total hip arthroplasties in the Norwegian arthroplasty register. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004;86(4):504–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lee JM, Nam HT. Acetabular revision total hip arthroplasty using an impacted morselized allograft and a cementless cup: minimum 10-year follow-up. J Arthroplasty. 2011;26(7):1057–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Palm L, Jacobsson SA, Kvist J, Lindholm A, Ojersjö A, Ivarsson I. Acetabular revision with extensive allograft impaction and uncemented hydroxyapatite-coated implants. Results after 9 (7–11) years follow-up. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22(8):1083–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mohaddes M, Herberts P, Malchau, Johanson P-E, Kärrholm J. High proximal migration in cemented acetabular revisions operated with bone impaction grafting; 47 revision cups followed with RSA for 17 years. Hip Int. 2017;27(3):251–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schreurs BW, Keurentjes JC, Gardeniers JW, Verdonschot N, Slooff TJ, Veth RP. Acetabular revision with impacted morsellised cancellous bone grafting and a cemented acetabular component: a 20- to 25-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009;91(9):1148–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schmitz MWJL, Hannink G, Gardeniers JWM, Verdonschot N, Slooff TJJH, Schreurs BW. Acetabular reconstruction with impaction bone-greafting and a cemented cup in patients younger than 50 years of age. A concise follo-up, at 27 to 35 years, of a previous report. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017;99(19):1440–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schreurs BW, Luttjeboer J, Thien TM, de Waal Malefijt MC, Buma P, Veth RPH, Slooff TJJH. Acetabular revision with impacted morselized cancellous bone graft and a cemented cup in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. A concise followup, at eight to nineteen years, of a previous report. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(3):646–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Buttaro MA, Comba F, Pusso R, Piccaluga F. Acetabular revision with metal mesh, impaction bone grafting, and a cemented cup. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466(10):2482–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Van Haaren EH, Heyligers IC, Alexander FGM, Wuisman PIJM. High rate of failure of impaction grafting in large acetabular defects. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89:296–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ornstein E, Franzén H, Johnsson R, Stefánsdóttir A, Sundberg M, Tägil M. Five-year follow-up of socket movements and loosening after revision with impacted morselized allograft bone and cement. A radiostereometric and radiographic analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2006;21:975–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Buma P, Lamerigts N, Schreurs BW, Gardeniers J, Verslayen D, Slooff TJJH. Impacted graft incorporation after cemented acetabular revision. Histological evaluation in 8 patients. Acta Orthop Scand. 1996;67:536–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tägil M, Aspenberg P. Fibrous tissue armoring increases the mechanical strength of an impacted bone graft. Acta Orthop Scand. 2001;72(1):78–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Waddell BS, Boettner F, Gonzalez Della Valle A. Favorable early results of impaction bone grafting with reinforcement mesh for the treatment of Paprosky 3B acetabular defects. J Arthroplasty. 2017;32:919–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Garcia-Cimbrelo E, Cruz-Pardos A, Garcia-Rey E, Ortega-Chamarro J. The survival and fate of acetabular reconstruction with impaction grafting for large defects. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:3304–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schimmel JW, Buma P, Versleyen D, Huiskes R, Slooff TJJH. Acetabular reconstruction with impacted morcellized cancellous allografts in cemented hip arthroplasty: A histologic and biomechanical study on the goat. J Arthroplasty. 1998;13:438–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Slooff TJ, Schimmel JW, Buma P. Cemented fixation with bone grafts. Orthop Clin North Am. 1993;24:667–77.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Comba F, Buttaro M, Pusso R, Piccaluga F. Acetabular reconstruction with impacted bone allografts and cemented acetabular components: a 2- to 13-year followup study of 142 aseptic revisions. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006;88:865–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Crowninshield RD, Brand RA, Pedersen DR. A stress analysis of acetabular reconstruction in protrusion acetabuli. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1983;65:495–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Paprosky WG, Perona PG, Lawrence JM. Acetabular defect classification and surgical reconstruction in revision arthroplasty: a 6-year follow-up evaluation. J Arthroplasty. 1994;9:33–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    García-Rey E, Madero R, García-Cimbrelo E. THA revisions using impaction allografting with mesh is durfor medial but not lateral acetabular defects. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473:3882–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Borland WS, Bhattacharya R, Holland JP, Brewster NT. Use of porous trabecular metal augments with impaction bone grafting in management of acetabular bone loss. Early to medium-trem results. Acta Orthop. 2012;83(4):347–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gehrke T, Bangert Y, Schwantes B, Gebauer M, Kendoff D. Acetabular revision in THA using tantalum augments combined with impaction bone grafting. Hip Int. 2013;23:359–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gill K, Wilson MJ, Whitehouse SL, Timperley AJ. Results using trabecular metal augments in combination with acetabular impaction bone grafting in deficient acetabula. Hip Int. 2013;23(6):522–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schreurs BW, te Stroet MAJ, Rijnen WHC, Gardeniers JWM. Acetabular re-revision with impaction bone grafting and a cemented polyethylene cup; a biological option for successive reconstructions. Hip Int. 2015;25(1):44–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ranawat CS, Dorr LD, Inglis AE. Total hip arthroplasty in protrusio acetabuli of rheumatoid arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1980;62:1059–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schreurs BW, Slooff THHJ, Gardeniers JWM, Buma P. Acetabular reconsruction with bone impaction grafting and a cemented cup. 20 years’ of experience. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;393:202–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hooten JP Jr, Engh CA Jr, Engh CA. Failure of structural acetabular allografts in cementless revision hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1994;76(3):419–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Shinar AA, Harris WH. Bulk structural autogenous grafts and allografts for reconstruction of the acetabulum in total hip arthroplasty. Sixteen-year-average follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997;79(2):159–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    van Egmond N, De Kam DC, Gardeniers JW, Schreurs BW. Revisions of extensive acetabular defects with impaction grafting and a cement cup. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(2):562–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bolder SB, Schreurs BW, Verdonschot N, van Unen JM, Gardeniers JW, Slooff TJ. Particle size of bone graft and method of impaction affect initial stability of cemented cups: human cadaveric and synthetic pelvic specimen studies. Acta Orthop Scand. 2003;74(6):652–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eduardo García-Rey
    • 1
  • Eduardo García-Cimbrelo
    • 1
  1. 1.Orthopaedic Surgery DepartmentHospital Universitario La Paz-IdiPazMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations