Top

International Orthopaedics

Published in:

01-08-2016 | Original Paper

Acetabular reconstruction with a reinforcement device and bone grafting in revision arthroplasty—a mean five years of follow-up

Authors: Ancuța Zazgyva, Sándor-György Zuh, Ciprian Oliviu Roman, István Gergely, Tudor Sorin Pop

Published in: International Orthopaedics | Issue 8/2016

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the clinical and radiological outcomes of acetabular reconstruction using a reinforcement device (RD) in combination with bone grafting in Paprosky type 2 and 3 acetabular bone defects.

Methods

Morselised bone grafts were used to fill cavitary defects and a structural graft placed in the superior part of the acetabulum in cases of cranial bone defects, with a proximally fixed RD (Protetim, Hódmezővásárhely, Hungary) implanted in all cases. Construct stability, device positioning, hip centre of rotation and medial acetabular wall thickness were evaluated radiologically. Survival rates were estimated with aseptic loosening and revision for any reason as endpoints.

Results

The 28 patients (29 hips) were followed for 4.8 ± 2.7 years (range, 2-10.4 years). Hip centre of rotation was lowered in all cases, with no significant differences between the mean values obtained post-operatively and at the last follow-up. Medial acetabular wall thickness and RD abduction angle were maintained up to the last evaluation. Bone grafts integrated by two years post-operatively in the majority of cases. Kaplan-Meier survival rates were 85.2 % and 82.1 % for the two endpoints at ten years.

Conclusions

Acetabular reconstruction using a proximally fixed RD in combination with bone grafting offered good mid-term results in the treatment of acetabular bone defects. In cases of severe bone loss, the structural allograft allowed placement of the RD with ischial contact, rendering survival rates similar to RDs with both iliac and ilioischial fixation. The technique was successful in restoring and maintaining medial acetabular bone stock and construct stability for up to ten years.

Dunbar MJ, Howard A, Bogoch ER, Parvizi J, Kreder HJ (2009) Orthopaedics in 2020: predictors of musculoskeletal need. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91(9):2276–2286. doi:10.2106/JBJS.H.01521 CrossRefPubMed

Ulrich SD, Seyler TM, Bennett D, Delanois RE, Saleh KJ, Thongtrangan I, Kuskowski M, Cheng EY, Sharkey PF, Parvizi J, Stiehl JB, Mont MA (2008) Total hip arthroplasties: what are the reasons for revision? Int Orthop 32(5):597–604. doi:10.1007/s00264-007-0364-3 CrossRefPubMed

Taylor ED, Browne JA (2012) Reconstruction options for acetabular revision. World J Orthop 3(7):95–100. doi:10.5312/wjo.v3.i7.95 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Pereira GC, Kubiak EN, Levine B, Chen FS, Di Cesare PE (2007) Cavitary acetabular defects treated with morselized cancellous bone graft and cementless cups. Int Orthop 31(4):445–450. doi:10.1007/s00264-006-0220-x CrossRefPubMed

Friedrich MJ, Schmolders J, Michel RD, Randau TM, Wimmer MD, Kohlhof H, Wirtz DC, Gravius S (2014) Management of severe periacetabular bone loss combined with pelvic discontinuity in revision hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop 38(12):2455–2461. doi:10.1007/s00264-014-2443-6 CrossRefPubMed

Inoue D, Kabata T, Maeda T, Kajino Y, Yamamoto T, Takagi T, Oomori T, Tsuchiya H (2015) The value of bulk femoral head allograft in acetabular reconstruction using Kerboull-type plate. Int Orthop 39(9):1839–1844. doi:10.1007/s00264-015-2857-9 CrossRefPubMed

Abolghasemian M, Sadeghi Naini M, Tangsataporn S, Lee P, Backstein D, Safir O, Kuzyk P, Gross AE (2014) Reconstruction of massive uncontained acetabular defects using allograft with cage or ring reinforcement: an assessment of the graft’s ability to restore bone stock and its impact on the outcome of re-revision. Bone Joint J 96-B(3):319–324. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.96B3.32850 CrossRefPubMed

Mao Y, Xu C, Xu J, Li H, Liu F, Yu D, Zhu Z (2015) The use of customized cages in revision total hip arthroplasty for Paprosky type III acetabular bone defects. Int Orthop 39(10):2023–2030. doi:10.1007/s00264-015-2965-6 CrossRefPubMed

Gross AE (2006) Restoration of acetabular bone loss 2005. J Arthroplasty 21(4 Suppl 1):117–120CrossRefPubMed

10.

Berry DJ (2004) Antiprotrusio cages for acetabular revision. Clin Orthop Relat Res 420:106–112CrossRefPubMed

11.

Schlegel UJ, Bitsch RG, Pritsch M, Clauss M, Mau H, Breusch SJ (2006) Mueller reinforcement rings in acetabular revision: outcome in 164 hips followed for 2-17 years. Acta Orthop 77(2):234–241. doi:10.1080/17453670610045966 CrossRefPubMed

12.

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(1):33–44CrossRefPubMed

13.

Gill TJ, Sledge JB, Muller ME (1998) The Burch-Schneider anti-protrusio cage in revision total hip arthroplasty: indications, principles and long-term results. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 80(6):946–953CrossRef

14.

Pierchon F, Migaud H, Duquennoy A, Fontaine C (1993) Radiologic evaluation of the rotation center of the hip. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 79(4):281–284PubMed

15.

Pascarel X, Liquois F, Chauveaux D, Le Rebeller A, Honton JL (1993) The use of Muller acetabular rings in revision surgery of total hip prosthesis. Apropos of 141 cases with a minimal 5-year follow-up. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 79(5):357–364PubMed

16.

Bonnomet F, Clavert P, Gicquel P, Lefebvre Y, Kempf JF (2001) Reconstruction by graft and reinforcement device in severe aseptic acetabular loosening: 10 years survivorship analysis. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 87(2):135–146PubMed

17.

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

18.

Philippe R, Gosselin O, Sedaghatian J, Dezaly C, Roche O, Sirveaux F, Mole D (2012) Acetabular reconstruction using morselized allograft and a reinforcement ring for revision arthroplasty with Paprosky type II and III bone loss: survival analysis of 95 hips after 5 to 13 years. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 98(2):129–137. doi:10.1016/j.otsr.2011.11.003 CrossRefPubMed

19.

Kowalczewski JB, Rutkowska-Sak L, Marczak D, Slowinska I, Slowinski R, Sibinski M (2013) Bone graft incorporation after revision hip arthroplasty in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: seventy eight revisions using bone allografts with or without metal reinforcements. Int Orthop 37(4):595–598. doi:10.1007/s00264-013-1794-8 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Kawanabe K, Akiyama H, Onishi E, Nakamura T (2007) 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) 89(1):26–31. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.89B1.18037 CrossRef

21.

Kerboull M, Hamadouche M, Kerboull L (2000) The Kerboull acetabular reinforcement device in major acetabular reconstructions. Clin Orthop Relat Res 378:155–168CrossRefPubMed

22.

Hori J, Yasunaga Y, Yamasaki T, Yoshida T, Oshima S, Yamasaki K, Matsuo T, Ochi M (2012) Mid-term results of acetabular reconstruction using a Kerboull-type acetabular reinforcement device. Int Orthop 36(1):23–26. doi:10.1007/s00264-011-1248-0 CrossRefPubMed

23.

Kim DH, Cho SH, Jeong ST, Park HB, Hwang SC, Park JS (2010) Restoration of the center of rotation in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 25(7):1041–1046. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2009.07.023 CrossRefPubMed

24.

Bicanic G, Delimar D, Delimar M, Pecina M (2009) Influence of the acetabular cup position on hip load during arthroplasty in hip dysplasia. Int Orthop 33(2):397–402. doi:10.1007/s00264-008-0683-z CrossRefPubMed

25.

Zuh SG, Zazgyva A, Gergely I, Pop TS (2015) Acetabuloplasty with bone grafting in uncemented hip replacement for protrusion. Int Orthop 39(9):1757–1763. doi:10.1007/s00264-015-2804-9 CrossRefPubMed

Title: Acetabular reconstruction with a reinforcement device and bone grafting in revision arthroplasty—a mean five years of follow-up
Authors: Ancuța Zazgyva
Sándor-György Zuh
Ciprian Oliviu Roman
István Gergely
Tudor Sorin Pop
Publication date: 01-08-2016
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: International Orthopaedics / Issue 8/2016
Print ISSN: 0341-2695
Electronic ISSN: 1432-5195
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-015-3030-1

ACC 2024 Congress

Springer Medicine

Acetabular reconstruction with a reinforcement device and bone grafting in revision arthroplasty—a mean five years of follow-up

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

ACC 2024 Congress

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 8/2016

Two hundred years of orthopaedics in Wuerzburg—one hundred years of the Koenig-Ludwig-Haus

A pilot study of regenerative therapy using controlled release of recombinant human fibroblast growth factor for patients with pre-collapse osteonecrosis of the femoral head

Anterior minimally invasive subcapital osteotomy without hip dislocation for slipped capital femoral epiphysis

Analysis of migration of the Nanos® short-stem hip implant within two years after surgery

International Orthopaedics is 4O years old!

Joint line level in revision total knee replacement: assessment and functional results with an average of seven years follow-up