Top

International Orthopaedics

Published in:

Open Access 01-03-2015 | Original Paper

Acetabular revision arthroplasty using trabecular titanium implants

Authors: Boris Steno, Milan Kokavec, Libor Necas

Published in: International Orthopaedics | Issue 3/2015

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to evaluate early results of acetabular revisions of total hip replacement using fully cementless trabecular titanium (TT) acetabular modular implants (Delta Trabecular Titanium, Limacorporate, Udine, Italy).

Methods

Between March 2009 and May 2012 TT was used in 81 revisions. The mean age at the time of revision was 68 years (32–84 years). There were nine patients revised for type 1, 11 for type 2A, 27 for type 2B, six for type 2C, 15 for type 3A and 13 for type 3B acetabular defects according to the Paprosky classification. Frozen morselised bone allografts were used in 53 cases and bulk structural allografts in three cases. Clinical evaluations were made using a modified functional Merle d’Aubigné-Postel score. The mean follow-up period was 38.14 months (24–62 months).

Results

The mean pre-operative Merle d’Aubigné-Postel functional score was 4.7 and 9.8 at the time of last follow-up. There was one revision due to instability of the acetabular component. A cage system—Delta Revision TT—was successfully used in this case. Three cases with Paprosky type 3B defect showed cranial migration of the acetabular component by 6 mm, but stabilised after six months. No dislocations associated with acetabular surgery have occurred in the cohort. There have been no dissociations of the modular component. A fatigue fracture of the hemispherical module occurred in the revised case. No other hardware mechanical failures have been recorded.

Conclusions

TT cups, hemispherical modules and augments facilitate reliable and reproducible biological fixation in acetabular revision surgery with excellent results. Extended follow-up is necessary to evaluate the long-term performance of TT modular implants.

Necas L, Katina S, Uhlarova J, Colton CL (2013) Survival analysis of total hip and knee arthroplasty in Slovakia 2003–2011. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech 80(Suppl):9–67

Jain S, Grogan RJ, Giannoudis PV (2014) Options for managing severe acetabular bone loss in revision hip arthroplasty. A systematic review. Hip Int 24:109–122CrossRefPubMed

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 80:946–953CrossRefPubMed

Herrera A, Martínez AA, Cuenca J, Canales V (2006) Management of types III and IV acetabular deficiencies with the longitudinal oblong revision cup. J Arthroplasty 21:857–864CrossRefPubMed

Unger AS, Lewis RJ, Gruen T (2005) Evaluation of porous tantalum uncemented acetabular cup in revision total hip arthroplasty: clinical and radiological results of 60 hips. J Arthroplasty 20:1002–1009CrossRefPubMed

Paprosky WG, Sporer SS, Murphy BP (2007) Addressing severe bone deficiency: what a cage will not do. J Arthroplasty 22(4 Suppl 1):111–115CrossRefPubMed

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 95-B:166–172CrossRefPubMed

Marin E, Fusi S, Pressaco M, Paussa L, Fedrizzi L (2010) Characterization of cellular solids in TiAl4V for orthopaedic implant applications: trabecular titanium. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 3:373–381CrossRefPubMed

Benazzo F, Botta L, Scaffino MF et al (2014) Trabecular titanium can induce in vitro osteogenic differentiation of human adipose derived stem cells without osteogenic factors. J Biomed Mater Res A 102:2061–2071. doi:10.1002/jbm.a.34875 CrossRefPubMed

10.

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

11.

Massin P, Schmidt L, Engh CA (1989) Evaluation of cementless acetabular component migration. An experimental study. J Arthroplasty 4:245–251CrossRefPubMed

12.

D’Aubigne RM, Postel M (1954) Functional results of hip arthroplasty with acrylic prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 36:451–475PubMed

13.

Charnley J (1979) Low friction arthroplasty. Theory and practice. Springer, New YorkCrossRef

14.

Paprosky WG, Magnus RE (1991) Classification and treatment of the failed acetabulum: a systematic approach. Contemp Orthop 22:121–130

15.

Paprosky WG, Bradford MS, Younger TI (1994) Acetabular reconstruction with massive allograft and cementless prosthesis. Chir Organi Mov 79:379–386PubMed

16.

Pulido L, Rachala SR, Cabanela ME (2011) Cementless acetabular revision: past, present and future. Revision total hip arthroplasty: the acetabular side using cementless implants. Int Orthop 35:289–298CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

17.

Hernigou P, Pariat J, Queinnec S et al (2014) Supercharging irradiated allografts with mesenchymal stem cells improves acetabular bone grafting in revision arthroplasty. Int Orthop. doi:10.1007/s00264-014-2285-2

18.

Št’astný E, Trč T, Handl M et al (2014) Mid-term results of revision total hip arthroplasty using the oval-shaped uncemented Trč-Cingr cup. Int Orthop 38:935–940CrossRef

19.

Dennis DA (2003) Management of massive acetabular defects in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 18(Suppl):121–125CrossRefPubMed

20.

Sakai T, Ohzono K, Nishii T et al (2013) Modular acetabular reconstructive cup in acetabular revision total hip arthroplasty at a minimum ten year follow-up. Int Orthop 37:605–610CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

21.

Davies JH, Laflamme GY, Delisle J, Fernandes J (2011) Trabecular metal used for major bone loss in acetabular hip revision. J Arthroplasty 26:1245–1250CrossRefPubMed

22.

Flecher X, Sporer S, Paprosky W (2008) Management of severe bone loss in acetabular revision using a trabecular metal shell. J Arthroplasty 23:949–955CrossRefPubMed

23.

Macheras GA, Papageloupoulos PJ, Kateros K, Kostakos AT, Baltas D, Karachalios TS (2006) Radiological evaluation of the metal-bone interface of a porous tantalum monoblock acetabular component. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88:304–309CrossRefPubMed

24.

Jaffari SM, Bender B, Coyle C et al (2010) Do tantalum and titanium cups show similar results in revision hip arthroplasty? Clin Orthop Relat Res 468:459–465CrossRef

25.

Beckmann NA, Weiss S, Klotz MC, Gondan Mm Jaeger S, Bitsch RG (2014) Loosening after acetabular revision: comparison of trabecular metal and reinforcement rings. A systematic review. J Arthroplasty 29:229–235CrossRefPubMed

26.

Meneghini RM, Meyer C, Buckley CA, Hanssen AD, Lewallen DG (2010) Mechanical stability of novel highly porous metal acetabular components in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 25:337–341CrossRefPubMed

27.

Skyttä ET, Eiskelinen A, Paavolainen PO, Remes VM (2011) Early results of 827 trabecular metal revision shells in acetabular revision. J Arthroplasty 26:342–345CrossRefPubMed

28.

Shultz TR, Blaha JD, Gruen TA, Norman TL (2006) Cortical bone viscoelasticity and fixation strength of press-fit femoral stems: finite element model. J Biomech Eng 128:7–12CrossRefPubMed

29.

Simon JP, Bellemans J (2009) Clinical and radiological evaluation of modular trabecular metal acetabular cups. Short-term results in 64 hips. Acta Orthop Belg 75:623–630PubMed

30.

Choi H, Anderson A, Foster S et al (2013) Acetabular cup positioning in revision total hip arthroplasty with Paprosky type III defects: Martell radiographic analysis. Int Orthop 37:1905–1910CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

31.

Sternheim A, Backstein D, Kuzyk PRT, Goshua G, Berkowich Y, Safir O, Gross AE (2012) Porous metal revision shells for management of contained acetabular bone defects at a mean follow-up of six years: a comparison between up to 50% bleeding host bone contact and more than 50% contact. J Bone Joint Surg Br 94:158–162CrossRefPubMed

Title: Acetabular revision arthroplasty using trabecular titanium implants
Authors: Boris Steno
Milan Kokavec
Libor Necas
Publication date: 01-03-2015
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: International Orthopaedics / Issue 3/2015
Print ISSN: 0341-2695
Electronic ISSN: 1432-5195
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-014-2509-5

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Acetabular revision arthroplasty using trabecular titanium implants

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 3/2015

Influence of wound drainage in primary total knee arthroplasty without tourniquet

Sports activities before and after medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty using the new Heidelberg Sports Activity Score

Comment on Madelaine et al.: Results and complications of single-stage total knee arthroplasty and high tibial osteotomy

Reply to: Comment on Madelaine A et al.: results and complications of single-stage total knee arthroplasty and high tibial osteotomy

Proximal tibial resection in varus-deformed tibiae during total knee arthroplasty: an in vitro study using sawbone model

Is percutaneous suturing superior to open fibrin gluing in acute Achilles tendon rupture?