Top

International Orthopaedics

Published in:

01-08-2018 | Original Paper

Clinical and radiological outcomes of trabecular metal systems and antiprotrusion cages in acetabular revision surgery with severe defects: a comparative study

Authors: Irene Isabel López-Torres, Pablo Sanz-Ruíz, Coral Sánchez-Pérez, Ricardo Andrade-Albarracín, Javier Vaquero

Published in: International Orthopaedics | Issue 8/2018

Abstract

Introduction

Acetabular revision surgery poses a challenge due to the increased frequency of severe defects and poor quality of the remaining bone. We compare the clinical and radiological outcomes, complications, and survival of two systems commonly used in complex acetabular revisions (AAOS types II, III, and IV): trabecular metal system (TM) and Burch-Schneider antiprotrusion cages (BS).

Methods

Eighty-four patients underwent acetabular revision surgery with TM or BS in our centre between 2008 and 2014. Comparison was made of demographic and clinical characteristics, satisfaction, radiographic parameters, complications, and survival of the implants. A BS was implanted in 30.9% of the patients, while 69.1% received a TM implant. The mean follow-up was 4.77 years.

Results

The BS group required a significantly greater number of constrained implants (p = 0.001) and more walking aids (p = 0.04). The mean satisfaction (p = 0.02) and HHS scores at the end of the follow-up were higher in the TM group (p = 0.003). No differences were observed in the incidence of complications, though the only two cases of implant rupture corresponded to the BS group. The overall survival rate was 88.1% after 7.5 years.

Conclusion

TM implants afforded better clinical outcomes and greater patient satisfaction than antiprotrusion cages in the treatment of severe acetabular defects.

Bozic KJ, Kamath AF, Ong K, Lau E, Kurtz S, Chan V, Vail TP, Rubash H, Berry DJ (2015) Comparative epidemiology of revision arthroplasty: failed THA poses greater clinical and economic burdens than failed TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 473:2131–2138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-014-4078-8 CrossRefPubMed

Sheth NP, Nelson CL, Springer BD, Fehring TK, Paprosky WG (2013) Acetabular bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty: evaluation and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 21:128–139. https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-21-03-128 CrossRefPubMed

Fernandez-Fairen M, Murcia A, Blanco A, Merono A, Murcia A Jr, Ballester J (2010) Revision of failed total hip arthroplasty acetabular cups to porous tantalum components: a 5-year follow-up study. J Arthroplast 25:865–872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2009.07.027 CrossRef

Nehme A, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD (2004) Modular porous metal augments for treatment of severe acetabular bone loss during revision hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 429:201–208. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000150133.88271.80 CrossRef

Davies JH, Laflamme GY, Delisle J, Fernandes J (2011) Trabecular metal used for major bone loss in acetabular hip revision. J Arthroplast 26:1245–1250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2011.02.022 CrossRef

Konan S, Duncan CP, Masri BA, Garbuz DS (2016) Porous tantalum uncemented acetabular components in revision total hip arthroplasty: a minimum ten-year clinical, radiological and quality of life outcome study. Bone Joint J 98-B:767–771. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.98B6.37183 CrossRefPubMed

Ilyas I, Alrumaih HA, Kashif S, Rabbani SA, Faqihi AH (2015) Revision of type III and type IVB acetabular defects with Burch-Schneider anti-Protrusio cages. J Arthroplast 30:259–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2014.08.014 CrossRef

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 2014:194076. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/194076 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Noiseux NO, Long WJ, Mabry TM, Hanssen AD, Lewallen DG (2014) Uncemented porous tantalum acetabular components: early follow-up and failures in 613 primary total hip arthroplasties. J Arthroplast 29:617–620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2013.07.037 CrossRef

10.

Siegmeth A, Duncan CP, Masri BA, Kim WY, Garbuz DS (2009) Modular tantalum augments for acetabular defects in revision hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467:199–205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-008-0549-0 CrossRefPubMed

11.

Gross AE, Goodman SB (2005) Rebuilding the skeleton: the intraoperative use of trabecular metal in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 20:91–93CrossRef

12.

Petrera P, Rubash HE (1995) Revision total hip arthroplasty: the acetabular component. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 3:15–21CrossRefPubMed

13.

Sadoghi P, Liebensteiner M, Agreiter M, Leithner A, Bohler N, Labek G (2013) Revision surgery after total joint arthroplasty: a complication-based analysis using worldwide arthroplasty registers. J Arthroplast 28:1329–1332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2013.01.012 CrossRef

14.

Blumenfeld TJ, Meehan J (2014) The use of augment devices in revision acetabular surgery. JBJS reviews 2(3). https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.RVW.M.00069

15.

Azorín L (2005) Revisión acetabular en situaciones de defecto óseo masivo. Rev Esp Cir Ortop Traumatol 49:93–99CrossRef

16.

D’Antonio JA, Capello WN, Borden LS, Bargar WL, Bierbaum BF, Boettcher WG, Steinberg ME, Stulberg SD, Wedge JH (1989) Classification and management of acetabular abnormalities in total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 243:126–137

17.

George DA, Haddad FS (2014) Surgical management of periprosthetic joint infections: two-stage exchange. J Knee Surg 27:279–282. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1376881 CrossRefPubMed

18.

Singh JA, Schleck C, Harmsen S, Lewallen D (2016) Clinically important improvement thresholds for Harris Hip score and its ability to predict revision risk after primary total hip arthroplasty. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 17:256. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-016-1106-8 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Bisseling P, Smolders JM, Hol A, van Susante JL (2011) No clear influence of preference bias on satisfaction and early functional outcome in resurfacing hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop 82:161–165. https://doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2011.566140 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

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

21.

Jones L, Grammatopoulos G, Singer G (2012) The Burch-Schneider cage: 9-year survival in Paprosky type 3 acetabular defects. Clin Radiol follow-up Hip Int: J Clin Exp Res Hip Pathol Ther 22:28–34. https://doi.org/10.5301/hip.2012.9078 CrossRef

22.

Makinen TJ, Kuzyk P, Safir OA, Backstein D, Gross AE (2016) Role of cages in revision arthroplasty of the acetabulum. J Bone Joint Surg Am 98:233–242. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.O.00143 CrossRefPubMed

23.

Macheras G, Kateros K, Kostakos A, Koutsostathis S, Danomaras D, Papagelopoulos PJ (2009) Eight- to ten-year clinical and radiographic outcome of a porous tantalum monoblock acetabular component. J Arthroplast 24:705–709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2008.06.020 CrossRef

24.

Gruen TA, Poggie RA, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD, Lewis RJ, O’Keefe TJ, Stulberg SD, Sutherland CJ (2005) Radiographic evaluation of a monoblock acetabular component: a multicenter study with 2- to 5-year results. J Arthroplast 20:369–378CrossRef

25.

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: J Clin Exp Res Hip Pathol Ther 18:17–22CrossRef

26.

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 20:1002–1009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2005.01.023 CrossRef

27.

van Koeveringe AJ, Ochsner PE (2002) Revision cup arthroplasty using Burch-Schneider anti-protrusio cage. Int Orthop 26:291–295. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-002-0361-5 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

28.

Brady OH, Masri BA, Garbuz DS, Duncan CP (1999) Use of reconstruction rings for the management of acetabular bone loss during revision hip surgery. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 7:1–7CrossRefPubMed

29.

Batuyong ED, Brock HS, Thiruvengadam N, Maloney WJ, Goodman SB, Huddleston JI (2014) Outcome of porous tantalum acetabular components for Paprosky type 3 and 4 acetabular defects. J Arthroplast 29:1318–1322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2013.12.002 CrossRef

30.

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 97:31–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12306-012-0233-0 CrossRefPubMed

31.

Long WJ, Noiseux NO, Mabry TM, Hanssen AD, Lewallen DG (2015) Uncemented porous tantalum acetabular components: early follow-up and failures in 599 revision Total hip arthroplasties. Iowa Orthop J 35:108–113PubMedPubMedCentral

Title: Clinical and radiological outcomes of trabecular metal systems and antiprotrusion cages in acetabular revision surgery with severe defects: a comparative study
Authors: Irene Isabel López-Torres
Pablo Sanz-Ruíz
Coral Sánchez-Pérez
Ricardo Andrade-Albarracín
Javier Vaquero
Publication date: 01-08-2018
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: International Orthopaedics / Issue 8/2018
Print ISSN: 0341-2695
Electronic ISSN: 1432-5195
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-3801-6

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Clinical and radiological outcomes of trabecular metal systems and antiprotrusion cages in acetabular revision surgery with severe defects: a comparative study

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 8/2018

Hip fracture time-to-surgery and mortality revisited: mitigating comorbidity confounding by effect of holidays on surgical timing

Lateral unicompartmental knee replacement: a systematic review of reasons for failure

The minimally invasive anterolateral approach versus the traditional anterolateral approach (Watson-Jones) for hip hemiarthroplasty after a femoral neck fracture: an analysis of clinical outcomes

A novel percutaneous achievement and maintenance of reduction and screw fixation for acute displaced scaphoid fractures: minimum two-year follow-up

Jean-Louis Petit (1674–1750): a pioneer anatomist and surgeon and his contribution to orthopaedic surgery and trauma surgery

The accuracy of free hand resection in limb salvage surgery of bone tumours