Skip to main content
Top
Published in: International Orthopaedics 5/2017

01-05-2017 | Original Paper

Use of porous tantalum components in Paprosky two and three acetabular revision. A minimum five-year follow-up of fifty one hips

Authors: Xavier Flecher, Benjamin Appy, Sébastien Parratte, Matthieu Ollivier, Jean-Noel Argenson

Published in: International Orthopaedics | Issue 5/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Introduction

Recent studies have reported short-term favourable results of tantalum-made components in acetabular revisions with bone loss. However, there is a lack of information regarding the mid to long-term results of such components.

Objectives

The objective of this study was to analyse the outcome and survivorship of acetabular revision hip arthroplasty using tantalum components for loosening associated with bone loss at a minimum of five-year follow-up.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 51 consecutive patients (51 hips) who had an acetabular revision using porous tantalum components at a minimum follow-up of five years. The mean age was 64 years (range, 31–87). There were 27 males and 24 females, 47 right hips and four left hips. Twenty-five (49 %) included a femoral revision. According to Paprosky’s classification 18 hips were classified type 2A, 11 type 2B, ten type 2C, seven type 3A and five type 3B. No bone grafting was performed. Sixteen hips (31.3 %) required the use of additional tantalum-made augments stabilized by screws and cement at the cup-augment interface.

Results

At a mean followup of 6.8 years (range, 5.1–10 years), the Harris hip score improved from 44 pre- operatively (range, 23–72) to 84 post-operatively (range, 33–98). The mean post-operative hip centre position in relation to the teardrop was 29 mm (range, 20—43 mm) horizontally and 21 mm (range, 8—36 mm) vertically. The mean acetabular inclination was 42° (range, 17–60°). Six hips (11.7 %) required a re-operation without component revision (two for chronic instability, one ossification removal, one haematoma, one deep infection and one periprosthetic femoral fracture). One patient required a cup re-revision for septic loosening. No aseptic loosening occurred. At last followup the radiological analysis showed one evolutive osteolysis and one screw breakage. The global survivorship was 92.3 % at 64 months. If only aseptic loosening was defined as the end-point the survivorship was 100 % at 64 months.

Conclusions

When facing an acetabular revision with severe bone loss, tantalum-made components can provide a stable fixation. This study at a minimum five-year follow-up compares favourably with other reconstruction techniques, but longer follow-up is still required.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Gross AE (1999) Revision arthroplasty of the acetabulum with restoration of bone stock. Clin Orthop 198–207 Gross AE (1999) Revision arthroplasty of the acetabulum with restoration of bone stock. Clin Orthop 198–207
2.
go back to reference Gross AE, Goodman S (2004) The role of cages and rings: when all else fails. Orthopedics 27:969–970PubMed Gross AE, Goodman S (2004) The role of cages and rings: when all else fails. Orthopedics 27:969–970PubMed
3.
go back to reference Gross AE, Goodman S (2004) The current role of structural grafts and cages in revision arthroplasty of the hip. Clin Orthop 193–200 Gross AE, Goodman S (2004) The current role of structural grafts and cages in revision arthroplasty of the hip. Clin Orthop 193–200
4.
go back to reference Zazgyva A, Zuh S-G, Roman CO et al (2015) Acetabular reconstruction with a reinforcement device and bone grafting in revision arthroplasty-a mean five years of follow-up. Int Orthop 40(8):1631–1638. doi:10.1007/s00264-015-3030-1 Zazgyva A, Zuh S-G, Roman CO et al (2015) Acetabular reconstruction with a reinforcement device and bone grafting in revision arthroplasty-a mean five years of follow-up. Int Orthop 40(8):1631–1638. doi:10.​1007/​s00264-015-3030-1
6.
go back to reference Schreurs BW, Bolder SBT, Gardeniers JWM et al (2004) Acetabular revision with impacted morsellised cancellous bone grafting and a cemented cup. A 15- to 20-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 86:492–497CrossRef Schreurs BW, Bolder SBT, Gardeniers JWM et al (2004) Acetabular revision with impacted morsellised cancellous bone grafting and a cemented cup. A 15- to 20-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 86:492–497CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Gilbody J, Taylor C, Bartlett GE et al (2014) Clinical and radiographic outcomes of acetabular impaction grafting without cage reinforcement for revision hip replacement: a minimum ten-year follow-up study. Bone Jt J 96-B:188–194. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.96B2.32121 CrossRef Gilbody J, Taylor C, Bartlett GE et al (2014) Clinical and radiographic outcomes of acetabular impaction grafting without cage reinforcement for revision hip replacement: a minimum ten-year follow-up study. Bone Jt J 96-B:188–194. doi:10.​1302/​0301-620X.​96B2.​32121 CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Chen WM, Engh CA, Hopper RH et al (2000) Acetabular revision with use of a bilobed component inserted without cement in patients who have acetabular bone-stock deficiency. J Bone Joint Surg Am 82:197–206CrossRefPubMed Chen WM, Engh CA, Hopper RH et al (2000) Acetabular revision with use of a bilobed component inserted without cement in patients who have acetabular bone-stock deficiency. J Bone Joint Surg Am 82:197–206CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Paprosky WG, Perona PG, Lawrence JM (1994) Acetabular defect classification and surgical reconstruction in revision arthroplasty. A 6-year follow-up evaluation. J Arthroplasty 9:33–44CrossRefPubMed Paprosky WG, Perona PG, Lawrence JM (1994) Acetabular defect classification and surgical reconstruction in revision arthroplasty. A 6-year follow-up evaluation. J Arthroplasty 9:33–44CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Dearborn JT, Harris WH (2000) Acetabular revision arthroplasty using so-called jumbo cementless components: an average 7-year follow-up study. J Arthroplasty 15:8–15CrossRefPubMed Dearborn JT, Harris WH (2000) Acetabular revision arthroplasty using so-called jumbo cementless components: an average 7-year follow-up study. J Arthroplasty 15:8–15CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Hendricks KJ, Harris WH (2006) Revision of failed acetabular components with use of so-called jumbo noncemented components. A concise follow-up of a previous report. J Bone Joint Surg Am 88:559–563. doi:10.2106/JBJS.E.00389 PubMed Hendricks KJ, Harris WH (2006) Revision of failed acetabular components with use of so-called jumbo noncemented components. A concise follow-up of a previous report. J Bone Joint Surg Am 88:559–563. doi:10.​2106/​JBJS.​E.​00389 PubMed
16.
go back to reference Whaley AL, Berry DJ, Harmsen WS (2001) Extra-large uncemented hemispherical acetabular components for revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 83-A:1352–1357CrossRefPubMed Whaley AL, Berry DJ, Harmsen WS (2001) Extra-large uncemented hemispherical acetabular components for revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 83-A:1352–1357CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Dearborn JT, Harris WH (1999) High placement of an acetabular component inserted without cement in a revision total hip arthroplasty. Results after a mean of ten years. J Bone Joint Surg Am 81:469–480CrossRefPubMed Dearborn JT, Harris WH (1999) High placement of an acetabular component inserted without cement in a revision total hip arthroplasty. Results after a mean of ten years. J Bone Joint Surg Am 81:469–480CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Della Valle CJ, Berger RA, Rosenberg AG, Galante JO (2004) Cementless acetabular reconstruction in revision total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 96–100 Della Valle CJ, Berger RA, Rosenberg AG, Galante JO (2004) Cementless acetabular reconstruction in revision total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 96–100
19.
go back to reference Della Valle CJ, Shuaipaj T, Berger RA et al (2005) Revision of the acetabular component without cement after total hip arthroplasty. A concise follow-up, at fifteen to nineteen years, of a previous report. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87:1795–1800. doi:10.2106/JBJS.D.01818 CrossRefPubMed Della Valle CJ, Shuaipaj T, Berger RA et al (2005) Revision of the acetabular component without cement after total hip arthroplasty. A concise follow-up, at fifteen to nineteen years, of a previous report. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87:1795–1800. doi:10.​2106/​JBJS.​D.​01818 CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Leopold SS, Rosenberg AG, Bhatt RD et al (1999) Cementless acetabular revision. Evaluation at an average of 10.5 years. Clin Orthop 179–186 Leopold SS, Rosenberg AG, Bhatt RD et al (1999) Cementless acetabular revision. Evaluation at an average of 10.5 years. Clin Orthop 179–186
23.
29.
go back to reference Bobyn JD, Poggie RA, Krygier JJ et al (2004) Clinical validation of a structural porous tantalum biomaterial for adult reconstruction. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86-A(Suppl 2):123–129CrossRef Bobyn JD, Poggie RA, Krygier JJ et al (2004) Clinical validation of a structural porous tantalum biomaterial for adult reconstruction. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86-A(Suppl 2):123–129CrossRef
31.
go back to reference Christie MJ (2002) Clinical applications of Trabecular Metal. Am J Orthop Belle Mead NJ 31:219–220PubMed Christie MJ (2002) Clinical applications of Trabecular Metal. Am J Orthop Belle Mead NJ 31:219–220PubMed
32.
go back to reference Nehme A, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD (2004) Modular porous metal augments for treatment of severe acetabular bone loss during revision hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 201–208 Nehme A, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD (2004) Modular porous metal augments for treatment of severe acetabular bone loss during revision hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 201–208
34.
go back to reference Harris WH (1969) Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 51:737–755CrossRefPubMed Harris WH (1969) Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 51:737–755CrossRefPubMed
35.
go back to reference Callaghan JJ, Salvati EA, Pellicci PM et al (1985) Results of revision for mechanical failure after cemented total hip replacement, 1979 to 1982. A two to five-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 67:1074–1085CrossRefPubMed Callaghan JJ, Salvati EA, Pellicci PM et al (1985) Results of revision for mechanical failure after cemented total hip replacement, 1979 to 1982. A two to five-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 67:1074–1085CrossRefPubMed
36.
go back to reference DeLee JG, Charnley J (1976) Radiological demarcation of cemented sockets in total hip replacement. Clin Orthop 20–32 DeLee JG, Charnley J (1976) Radiological demarcation of cemented sockets in total hip replacement. Clin Orthop 20–32
37.
go back to reference Massin P, Schmidt L, Engh CA (1989) Evaluation of cementless acetabular component migration. An experimental study. Arthroplasty 4:245–251CrossRef Massin P, Schmidt L, Engh CA (1989) Evaluation of cementless acetabular component migration. An experimental study. Arthroplasty 4:245–251CrossRef
38.
go back to reference Gill TJ, Sledge JB, Müller ME (1998) The Bürch-Schneider anti-protrusio cage in revision total hip arthroplasty: indications, principles and long-term results. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 80:946–953CrossRef Gill TJ, Sledge JB, Müller ME (1998) The Bürch-Schneider anti-protrusio cage in revision total hip arthroplasty: indications, principles and long-term results. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 80:946–953CrossRef
39.
go back to reference Kerboull M, Hamadouche M, Kerboull L (2000) The Kerboull acetabular reinforcement device in major acetabular reconstructions. Clin Orthop 155–168 Kerboull M, Hamadouche M, Kerboull L (2000) The Kerboull acetabular reinforcement device in major acetabular reconstructions. Clin Orthop 155–168
41.
go back to reference Berry DJ, Müller ME (1992) Revision arthroplasty using an anti-protrusio cage for massive acetabular bone deficiency. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 74:711–715 Berry DJ, Müller ME (1992) Revision arthroplasty using an anti-protrusio cage for massive acetabular bone deficiency. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 74:711–715
42.
go back to reference Bonnomet F, Clavert P, Gicquel P et al (2001) Reconstruction by graft and reinforcement device in severe aseptic acetabular loosening: 10 years survivorship analysis. Rev Chir Orthop Réparatrice Appar Mot 87:135–146PubMed Bonnomet F, Clavert P, Gicquel P et al (2001) Reconstruction by graft and reinforcement device in severe aseptic acetabular loosening: 10 years survivorship analysis. Rev Chir Orthop Réparatrice Appar Mot 87:135–146PubMed
43.
go back to reference Morand F, Clarac JP, Gayet LE, Pries P (1998) Acetabular reconstruction using bone allograft in the revision of total hip prosthesis. Rev Chir Orthop Réparatrice Appar Mot 84:154–161PubMed Morand F, Clarac JP, Gayet LE, Pries P (1998) Acetabular reconstruction using bone allograft in the revision of total hip prosthesis. Rev Chir Orthop Réparatrice Appar Mot 84:154–161PubMed
45.
go back to reference Paprosky WG, Magnus RE (1994) Principles of bone grafting in revision total hip arthroplasty. Acetabular technique. Clin Orthop 147–155 Paprosky WG, Magnus RE (1994) Principles of bone grafting in revision total hip arthroplasty. Acetabular technique. Clin Orthop 147–155
Metadata
Title
Use of porous tantalum components in Paprosky two and three acetabular revision. A minimum five-year follow-up of fifty one hips
Authors
Xavier Flecher
Benjamin Appy
Sébastien Parratte
Matthieu Ollivier
Jean-Noel Argenson
Publication date
01-05-2017
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
International Orthopaedics / Issue 5/2017
Print ISSN: 0341-2695
Electronic ISSN: 1432-5195
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-016-3312-2

Other articles of this Issue 5/2017

International Orthopaedics 5/2017 Go to the issue