Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Revision Arthroplasty of the Acetabulum Using Structural Allograft and a Cage: State-of-the-Art

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Acetabular Revision Surgery in Major Bone Defects

  • 568 Accesses

Abstract

Acetabular revision in major bone defects represents a demanding procedure. Those defects are now well classified which help the surgeon better assess the extent of bone loss within the acetabulum. The world’s global research in orthopedics has led to the manufacturing of large variety of techniques and devices to restore the normal anatomy of the hip. The purpose of this chapter is to review the outcomes of methods using structural bone allograft alone or a cage.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Kurtz SM, Ong KL, Schmier J, Zhao K, Mowat F, Lau E. Primary and revision arthroplasty surgery caseloads in the United States from 1990 to 2004. J Arthroplast. 2009;24(2):195–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Kurtz S, Mowat F, Ong K, Chan N, Lau E, Halpern M. Prevalence of primary and revision total hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 1990 through 2002. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(7):1487–97.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kurtz SM, Ong KL, Lau E, Bozic KJ. Impact of the economic downturn on total joint replacement demand in the United States: updated projections to 2021. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96(8):624–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(4):780–5.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Inacio MCS, Graves SE, Pratt NL, Roughead EE, Nemes S. Increase in total joint arthroplasty projected from 2014 to 2046 in Australia: a conservative local model with international implications. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017;475(8):2130–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Patel A, Pavlou G, Mújica-Mota RE, Toms AD. The epidemiology of revision total knee and hip arthroplasty in England and Wales: a comparative analysis with projections for the United States. A study using the National Joint Registry dataset. Bone Joint J. 2015;97-B(8):1076–81.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Bozic KJ, Kurtz SM, Lau E, Ong K, Vail TP, Berry DJ. The epidemiology of revision total hip arthroplasty in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(1):128–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Hanna SA, Somerville L, McCalden RW, Naudie DD, MacDonald SJ. Highly cross-linked polyethylene decreases the rate of revision of total hip arthroplasty compared with conventional polyethylene at 13 years’ follow-up. Bone Joint J. 2016;98-B(1):28–32.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Shen C, Tang ZH, Hu JZ, Zou GY, Xiao RC, Yan DX. Does cross-linked polyethylene decrease the revision rate of total hip arthroplasty compared with conventional polyethylene? A meta-analysis. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2014;100(7):745–50.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Bitsch RG, Loidolt T, Heisel C, Ball S, Schmalzried TP. Reduction of osteolysis with use of Marathon cross-linked polyethylene. A concise follow-up, at a minimum of five years, of a previous report. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(7):1487–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Epinette J-A, Jolles-Haeberli BM. Comparative results from a National Joint Registry hip data set of a new cross-linked annealed polyethylene vs both conventional polyethylene and ceramic bearings. J Arthroplast. 2016;31(7):1483–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Delaunay C, Hamadouche M, Girard J, Duhamel A, So FG. What are the causes for failures of primary hip arthroplasties in France? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471(12):3863–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. DeLee JG, Charnley J. Radiological demarcation of cemented sockets in total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1976;121:20–32.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Chiang PP, Burke DW, Freiberg AA, Rubash HE. Osteolysis of the pelvis: evaluation and treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;417:164–74.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Engh CA, Glassman AH, Griffin WL, Mayer JG. Results of cementless revision for failed cemented total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988;235:91–110.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Gustilo RB, Pasternak HS. Revision total hip arthroplasty with titanium ingrowth prosthesis and bone grafting for failed cemented femoral component loosening. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988;235:111–9.

    Google Scholar 

  17. D’Antonio JA, Capello WN, Borden LS, Bargar WL, Bierbaum BF, Boettcher WG, et al. Classification and management of acetabular abnormalities in total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989;243:126–37.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Sheth NP, Nelson CL, Springer BD, Fehring TK, Paprosky WG. Acetabular bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty: evaluation and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2013;21(3):128–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Gross AE, Allan DG, Catre M, Garbuz DS, Stockley I. Bone grafts in hip replacement surgery. The pelvic side. Orthop Clin North Am. 1993;24(4):679–95.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Saleh KJ, Holtzman J, Gafni Asaleh L, Jaroszynski G, Wong P, Woodgate I, et al. Development, test reliability and validation of a classification for revision hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Res. 2001;19(1):50–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Paprosky WG, Perona PG, Lawrence JM. Acetabular defect classification and surgical reconstruction in revision arthroplasty. A 6-year follow-up evaluation. J Arthroplast. 1994;9(1):33–44.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Della Valle CJ, Berger RA, Rosenberg AG, Galante JO. Cementless acetabular reconstruction in revision total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;420:96–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hallstrom BR, Golladay GJ, Vittetoe DA, Harris WH. Cementless acetabular revision with the Harris-Galante porous prosthesis. Results after a minimum of ten years of follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86-A(5):1007–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Park DK, Della Valle CJ, Quigley L, Moric M, Rosenberg AG, Galante JO. Revision of the acetabular component without cement. A concise follow-up, at twenty to twenty-four years, of a previous report. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(2):350–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Templeton JE, Callaghan JJ, Goetz DD, Sullivan PM, Johnston RC. Revision of a cemented acetabular component to a cementless acetabular component. A ten to fourteen-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001 2001/11//;83-A(11):1706–11.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Trumm BN, Callaghan JJ, Liu SS, Goetz DD, Johnston RC. Revision with cementless acetabular components: a concise follow-up, at a minimum of twenty years, of previous reports. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94(21):2001–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Boscainos PJ, Kellett CF, Maury AC, Backstein D, Gross AE. Management of periacetabular bone loss in revision hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;465:159–65.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Garcia-Cimbrelo E. Porous-coated cementless acetabular cups in revision surgery: a 6- to 11-year follow-up study. J Arthroplast. 1999;14(4):397–406.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Goodman S, Saastamoinen H, Shasha N, Gross A. Complications of ilioischial reconstruction rings in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2004;19(4):436–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Morsi E, Garbuz D, Gross AE. Revision total hip arthroplasty with shelf bulk allografts. A long-term follow-up study. J Arthroplast. 1996;11(1):86–90.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Woodgate IG, Saleh KJ, Jaroszynski G, Agnidis Z, Woodgate MM, Gross AE. Minor column structural acetabular allografts in revision hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000;371:75–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Lee PTH, Raz G, Safir OA, Backstein DJ, Gross AE. Long-term results for minor column allografts in revision hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(12):3295–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Harris WH. Allografting in total hip arthroplasty: in adults with severe acetabular deficiency including a surgical technique for bolting the graft to the ilium. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1982;162:150–64.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Harris WH, Crothers O, Oh I. Total hip replacement and femoral-head bone-grafting for severe acetabular deficiency in adults. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1977;59(6):752–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Sporer SM, O’Rourke M, Chong P, Paprosky WG. The use of structural distal femoral allografts for acetabular reconstruction. Surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88(Suppl 1 Pt 1):92–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Jasty M, Harris WH. Salvage total hip reconstruction in patients with major acetabular bone deficiency using structural femoral head allografts. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1990;72(1):63–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Pollock FH, Whiteside LA. The fate of massive allografts in total hip acetabular revision surgery. J Arthroplast. 1992;7(3):271–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Hooten JP, Engh CA, Engh CA. Failure of structural acetabular allografts in cementless revision hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1994;76(3):419–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Kwong LM, Jasty M, Harris WH. High failure rate of bulk femoral head allografts in total hip acetabular reconstructions at 10 years. J Arthroplast. 1993;8(4):341–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Paprosky WG, Magnus RE. Principles of bone grafting in revision total hip arthroplasty. Acetabular technique. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994;298:147–55.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Garbuz D, Morsi E, Gross AE. Revision of the acetabular component of a total hip arthroplasty with a massive structural allograft. Study with a minimum five-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1996;78(5):693–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Brown NM, Morrison J, Sporer SM, Paprosky WG. The use of structural distal femoral allograft for acetabular reconstruction of paprosky type IIIA defects at a mean 21 years of follow-up. J Arthroplast. 2016;31(3):680–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Sporer SM, O’Rourke M, Chong P, Paprosky WG. The use of structural distal femoral allografts for acetabular reconstruction. Average ten-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(4):760–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Hanssen AD, Lewallen DG. Modular acetabular augments: composite void fillers. Orthopedics. 2005;28(9):971–2.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Kosashvili Y, Backstein D, Safir O, Lakstein D, Gross AE. 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. 2009;91(7):870–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Abolghasemian M, Tangsaraporn S, Drexler M, Barbuto R, Backstein D, Safir O, et al. The challenge of pelvic discontinuity: cup-cage reconstruction does better than conventional cages in mid-term. Bone Joint J. 2014;96-B(2):195–200.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Amenabar T, Rahman WA, Hetaimish BM, Kuzyk PR, Safir OA, Gross AE. Promising mid-term results with a cup-cage construct for large acetabular defects and pelvic discontinuity. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016;474(2):408–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Sculco PK, Ledford CK, Hanssen AD, Abdel MP, Lewallen DG. The evolution of the cup-cage technique for major acetabular defects: full and half cup-cage reconstruction. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017;99(13):1104–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Haentjens P, Handelberg F, Casteleyn PP, Opdecam P. The Müller acetabular support ring. A preliminary review of indications and clinical results. Int Orthop. 1986;10(4):223–30.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Schatzker J, Glynn MK, Ritter D. A preliminary review of the Müller acetabular and Burch-Schneider antiprotrusio support rings. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg Arch Orthopadische Unfall-Chir. 1984;103(1):5–12.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Zehntner MK, Ganz R. Midterm results (5.5–10 years) of acetabular allograft reconstruction with the acetabular reinforcement ring during total hip revision. J Arthroplasty. 1994;9(5):469–79.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Korovessis P, Stamatakis M, Baikousis A, Katonis P, Petsinis G. Mueller roof reinforcement rings. Medium-term results. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999;362:125–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. van der Linde M, Tonino A. Acetabular revision with impacted grafting and a reinforcement ring: 42 patients followed for a mean of 10 years. Acta Orthop Scand. 2001;72(3):221–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Schlegel UJ, Bitsch RG, Pritsch M, Clauss M, Mau H, Breusch SJ. Mueller reinforcement rings in acetabular revision: outcome in 164 hips followed for 2–17 years. Acta Orthop. 2006;77(2):234–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Massin P, Tanaka C, Huten D, Duparc J. Treatment of aseptic acetabular loosening by reconstruction combining bone graft and Müller ring. Actuarial analysis over 11 years. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 1998;84(1):51–60.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Gill TJ, Siebenrock K, Oberholzer R, Ganz R. Acetabular reconstruction in developmental dysplasia of the hip: results of the acetabular reinforcement ring with hook. J Arthroplast. 1999;14(2):131–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Siebenrock KA, Trochsler M, Sadri H, Ganz R. Hooked roof cup in revision of difficult loose hip prosthesis cups. Results after a minimum of 10 years. Orthopade. 2001;30(5):273–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Gerber A, Pisan M, Zurakowski D, Isler B. Ganz reinforcement ring for reconstruction of acetabular defects in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85-A(12):2358–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Uchiyama K, Takahira N, Fukushima K, Yamamoto T, Moriya M, Itoman M. Radiological evaluation of allograft reconstruction in acetabulum with Ganz reinforcement ring in revision total hip replacement. J Orthop Sci. 2010;15(6):764–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00776-010-1549-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Hourscht C, Abdelnasser MK, Ahmad SS, Kraler L, Keel MJ, Siebenrock KA, et al. Reconstruction of AAOS type III and IV acetabular defects with the Ganz reinforcement ring: high failure in pelvic discontinuity. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2017;137(8):1139–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Tanaka C, Shikata J, Ikenaga M, Takahashi M. Acetabular reconstruction using a Kerboull-type acetabular reinforcement device and hydroxyapatite granules: a 3- to 8-year follow-up study. J Arthroplast. 2003;18(6):719–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Kim Y, Tanaka C, Kanoe H. Long-term outcome of acetabular reconstruction using a Kerboull-type acetabular reinforcement device with hydroxyapetite granule and structural autograft for AAOS type II and III acetabular defects. J Arthroplasty. 2015;30(10):1810–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2015.04.034.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Hori J, Yasunaga Y, Yamasaki T, Yoshida T, Oshima S, Yamasaki K, Matsuo T, Ochi M. Mid-term results of acetabular reconstruction using a Kerboull-type acetabular reinforcement device. Int Orthop. 2012;36(1):23–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-011-1248-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Akiyama H, Yamamoto K, Tsukanaka M, Kawanabe K, Otsuka H, So K, Goto K, Nakamura T. 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. 2011;93(9):1194–200. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.93b9.26598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Okano K, Miyata N, Enomoto H, Osaki M, Shindo H. Revision with impacted bone allografts and the Kerboull cross plate for massive bone defect of the acetabulum. J Arthroplasty. 2010;25(4):594–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2009.04.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Kawanabe K, Akiyama H, Onishi E, Nakamura T. Revision total hip replacement using the Kerboull acetabular reinforcement device with morsellised or bulk graft: results at a mean follow-up of 8.7 years. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89(1):26–31. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.89b1.18037.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Kerboull M, Hamadouche M, Kerboull L. The Kerboull acetabular reinforcement device in major acetabular reconstructions. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000;378:155–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Duffy GP, O’Connor MI, Brodersen MP. Fatigue failure of the GAP ring. J Arthroplast. 2007;22(5):711–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Buttaro MA, de la Rosa DM, Comba F, Piccaluga F. High failure rate with the GAP II ring and impacted allograft bone in severe acetabular defects. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470(11):3148–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Clinical Orthopaedic Research Center, Centre Hospitalo-Universitaire Cochin-Port Royal, Paris, France

    E. Gibon, L. Kerboull & M. Hamadouche

Authors
  1. E. Gibon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. L. Kerboull
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. Hamadouche
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Orthopaedic Surgery Department, Hospital Universitario La Paz-IdiPaz, Madrid, Spain

    Eduardo García-Rey

  2. Orthopaedic Surgery Department, Hospital Universitario La Paz-IdiPaz, Madrid, Spain

    Eduardo García-Cimbrelo

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Gibon, E., Kerboull, L., Hamadouche, M. (2019). Revision Arthroplasty of the Acetabulum Using Structural Allograft and a Cage: State-of-the-Art. In: García-Rey, E., García-Cimbrelo, E. (eds) Acetabular Revision Surgery in Major Bone Defects. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98596-1_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98596-1_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-98595-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-98596-1

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation