The Burch-Schneider Cage: 9-Year Survival in Paprosky Type 3 Acetabular Defects. Clinical and Radiological Follow-Up

Revision hip arthroplasty in cases with severe acetabular deficiency represents a technical challenge. The aim of this study was to determine: 1. The 9-year survival of the Burch Schneider anti-protrusio cage (BS-APC) in severe acetabular defects. 2. The migration of the cage and correlation of this with functional outcome. 3. The anticipated functional outcome users can expect in a district general hospital setting in the management of severe acetabular defects. A single-surgeon consecutive series of 30 complex acetabular reconstructions using the BS-APC was retrospectively reviewed. Clinical and radiological follow up at 5–9 years was obtained. Survival was established with revisions and further surgery as different end-points. A radiological analysis using ein bilt roentgen analyse (EBRA) was performed. At a mean follow-up of 85 months (range: 64–118) 26 patients (87%) were alive. Nine-year survival was 95% for revision of BS-APC as an end-point and 92% with any cause of further surgery as an endpoint. The mean Oxford Hip Score was 34.5 and UCLA activity score was 4.4. All cases demonstrated evidence of significant migration, but no screws were found to be broken. There was no correlation between cup migration and Oxford hip score (p=0.07). Our non-specialist centre experience suggests the BS-APC should not be dismissed as a reconstruction option in the most severe acetabular defects.

[1]  J. Gardeniers,et al.  Revisions of Extensive Acetabular Defects with Impaction Grafting and a Cement Cup , 2010, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[2]  I. McNamara,et al.  Impaction grafting of the acetabulum with a mixture of frozen, ground irradiated bone graft and porous synthetic bone substitute (Apapore 60). , 2010, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[3]  J. Parvizi,et al.  Revision Hip Arthroplasty: Infection is the Most Common Cause of Failure , 2010, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[4]  J. Pournaras,et al.  The Effectiveness of the Burch-Schneider antiprotrusio cage for acetabular bone deficiency: five to twenty-one years' follow-up. , 2009, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[5]  B. Masri,et al.  Modular Tantalum Augments for Acetabular Defects in Revision Hip Arthroplasty , 2009, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[6]  F. Mittag,et al.  Aneurysm of the femoral artery caused by aseptic loosening and migration of a Burch-Schneider cage. , 2009, Journal of Arthroplasty.

[7]  M. Mulier,et al.  The use of structural periacetabular allografts in acetabular revision surgery: 2.5–5 years follow-up , 2009, Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery.

[8]  D. Regis,et al.  Long-term results of anti-protrusion cage and massive allografts for the management of periprosthetic acetabular bone loss. , 2008, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[9]  G. Saxler,,et al.  Jumbo cups for revision of acetabular defects after total hip arthroplasty: a retrospective review of a case series , 2008, Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery.

[10]  D W Murray,et al.  The use of the Oxford hip and knee scores. , 2007, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[11]  S. Kurtz,et al.  Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. , 2007, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[12]  G. Holt,et al.  The biology of aseptic osteolysis. , 2007, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[13]  S. Sporer,et al.  The use of a trabecular metal acetabular component and trabecular metal augment for severe acetabular defects. , 2006, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[14]  T. Ilchmann,et al.  Acetabular reconstruction with the Burch-Schneider ring: An EBRA analysis of 40 cup revisions , 2006, Acta orthopaedica.

[15]  J. Gallo,et al.  Burch-Schneider cage fracture: a case report. , 2005, Biomedical papers of the Medical Faculty of the University Palacky, Olomouc, Czechoslovakia.

[16]  L. Ferrucci,et al.  Epidemiological profile of symptomatic osteoarthritis in older adults: a population based study in Dicomano, Italy , 2003, Annals of the rheumatic diseases.

[17]  P. Ochsner,et al.  Revision cup arthroplasty using Burch-Schneider anti-protrusio cage , 2002, International Orthopaedics.

[18]  L. Dorr,et al.  Technical factors for success with metal ring acetabular reconstruction. , 2001, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[19]  C. Perka,et al.  Reconstruction of segmental defects during revision procedures of the acetabulum with the Burch-Schneider anti-protrusio cage. , 2001, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[20]  C. Engh,et al.  Acetabular Revision with Use of a Bilobed Component Inserted without Cement in Patients Who Have Acetabular Bone-Stock Deficiency* , 2000, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[21]  T. Schmalzried,et al.  Assessing activity in joint replacement patients. , 1998, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[22]  R Bauer,et al.  EBRA: a method to measure migration of acetabular components. , 1995, Journal of biomechanics.

[23]  J. Lawrence,et al.  Acetabular defect classification and surgical reconstruction in revision arthroplasty. A 6-year follow-up evaluation. , 1994, The Journal of arthroplasty.