Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research article

Risk factors for failure of revision total hip arthroplasty using a Kerboull-type acetabular reinforcement device

Authors: Shinya Hayashi, Takayuki Nishiyama, Shingo Hashimoto, Tomoyuki Matsumoto, Koji Takayama, Kazunari Ishida, Kotaro Nishida, Ryosuke Kuroda

Published in: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders | Issue 1/2017

Abstract

Background

The present study aimed to identify the risk factors associated with revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) failure using a Kerboull-type (KT) plate.

Methods

We analyzed 77 revision THAs using cemented acetabular components with a KT plate for aseptic loosening between May 2000 and March 2012. We examined the association of bone graft type, acetabular bone defects, age at the time of surgery, preoperative Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, postoperative JOA hip score, and body mass index, with radiographic failure as the outcome.

Results

The 7.4-year radiographic failure survival rate was 81.6%. The survival rate was significantly different between the beta-tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP) group and the bulk allograft group (p = 0.019). The survival curves were also significantly different between the β-TCP group and bulk allograft group (p = 0.036). American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons type IV was significantly associated with radiographic failure (odds ratio [OR]: 15.5, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.4–175.4; p = 0.032).

Conclusions

The midterm outcomes of revision THA indicate that type of bone graft and bone defect size may affect radiographic survival rate when using a KT plate.

Caton J, Prudhon JL. Over 25 years survival after Charnley’s total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop. 2011;35(2):185–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Aldinger PR, Jung AW, Breusch SJ, Ewerbeck V, Parsch D. Survival of the cementless Spotorno stem in the second decade. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467(9):2297–304.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Suckel A, Geiger F, Kinzl L, Wulker N, Garbrecht M. Long-term results for the uncemented Zweymuller/Alloclassic hip endoprosthesis. A 15-year minimum follow-up of 320 hip operations. J Arthroplast. 2009;24(6):846–53.CrossRef

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

Ilyas I, Alrumaih HA, Kashif S, Rabbani SA, Faqihi AH. Revision of Type III and Type IVB Acetabular defects with Burch-Schneider Anti-Protrusio Cages. J Arthroplast. 2015;30(2):259–64.CrossRef

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.

Kerboull M, Hamadouche M, Kerboull L. The Kerboull acetabular reinforcement device in major acetabular reconstructions. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000;378(9):155–68.

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 Vol. 2007;89(1):26–31.CrossRef

10.

Baba T, Shitoto K. Revision of total hip arthroplasty using the Kerboull and KT plates. Int Orthop. 2010;34(3):341–7.CrossRefPubMed

11.

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.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Kawanabe K, Akiyama H, Goto K, Maeno S, Nakamura T. Load dispersion effects of acetabular reinforcement devices used in revision total hip arthroplasty: a simulation study using finite element analysis. J Arthroplast. 2011;26(7):1061–6.CrossRef

13.

McNamara I, Deshpande S, Porteous M. Impaction grafting of the acetabulum with a mixture of frozen, ground irradiated bone graft and porous synthetic bone substitute (Apapore 60). J Bone Joint Surg Br Vol. 2010;92(5):617–23.CrossRef

14.

Oonishi H, Iwaki Y, Kin N, Kushitani S, Murata N, Wakitani S, Imoto K. Hydroxyapatite in revision of total hip replacements with massive acetabular defects: 4- to 10-year clinical results. J Bone Joint Surg Br Vol. 1997;79(1):87–92.CrossRef

15.

Schwartz C, Liss P, Jacquemaire B, Lecestre P, Frayssinet P. Biphasic synthetic bone substitute use in orthopaedic and trauma surgery: clinical, radiological and histological results. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 1999;10(12):821–5.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Blom AW, Wylde V, Livesey C, Whitehouse MR, Eastaugh-Waring S, Bannister GC, Learmonth ID. Impaction bone grafting of the acetabulum at hip revision using a mix of bone chips and a biphasic porous ceramic bone graft substitute. Acta Orthop. 2009;80(2):150–4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Hasegawa Y, Iwata H, Mizuno M, Genda E, Sato S, Miura T. The natural course of osteoarthritis of the hip due to subluxation or acetabular dysplasia. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1992;111(4):187–91.CrossRefPubMed

18.

DeLee JG, Charnley J. Radiological demarcation of cemented sockets in total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1976;121(11):20–32.

19.

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.CrossRef

20.

Rogers BA, Whittingham-Jones PM, Mitchell PA, Safir OA, Bircher MD, Gross AE. The reconstruction of periprosthetic pelvic discontinuity. J Arthroplast. 2012;27(8):1499–506. e1491CrossRef

21.

Friedrich MJ, Schmolders J, Michel RD, Randau TM, Wimmer MD, Kohlhof H, Wirtz DC, Gravius S. Management of severe periacetabular bone loss combined with pelvic discontinuity in revision hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop. 2014;38(12):2455–61.CrossRefPubMed

Title: Risk factors for failure of revision total hip arthroplasty using a Kerboull-type acetabular reinforcement device
Authors: Shinya Hayashi
Takayuki Nishiyama
Shingo Hashimoto
Tomoyuki Matsumoto
Koji Takayama
Kazunari Ishida
Kotaro Nishida
Ryosuke Kuroda
Publication date: 01-12-2017
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2474
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-017-1741-8

ACC 2024 Congress

Springer Medicine

Risk factors for failure of revision total hip arthroplasty using a Kerboull-type acetabular reinforcement device

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

ACC 2024 Congress

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

Long-term outcome following additional rhBMP-7 application in revision surgery of aseptic humeral, femoral, and tibial shaft nonunion

Is coracohumeral distance associated with pain-function, and shoulder range of movement, in chronic anterior shoulder pain?

Influence of the anterior notch in mobile-bearing UKA on patellofemoral radiotracer uptake and clinical outcome

Educational needs in patients with spondyloarthritis in Sweden – a mixed-methods study

Magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of the distal oblique bundle in the distal interosseous membrane of the forearm

Early anti-inflammatory intervention ameliorates axial disease in the proteoglycan-induced spondylitis mouse model of ankylosing spondylitis