Are Custom Triflange Acetabular Components Effective for Reconstruction of Catastrophic Bone Loss?

BackgroundAlthough the introduction of ultraporous metals in the forms of acetabular components and augments has increased the orthopaedic surgeon’s ability to reconstruct severely compromised acetabuli, there remain some that cannot be managed readily using cups, augments, or cages. In such situations, allograft-prosthetic composites or custom acetabular components may be called for. However, few studies have reported on the results of these components.Questions/purposesThe purposes of this study were to determine the (1) frequency of repeat revision, (2) complications and radiographic findings, and (3) Harris hip scores in patients who underwent complex acetabular revision surgery with custom acetabular components.MethodsBetween August 2003 and February 2012, 26 patients (28 hips) have undergone acetabular reconstruction with custom triflange components. During this time, the general indications for using these implants included (1) failed prior salvage reconstruction with cage or porous metal construct augments, (2) large contained defects with possible discontinuity, (3) known pelvic discontinuity, and (4) complex multiply surgically treated hips with insufficient bone stock to reconstruct using other means. This approach was used in a cohort of patients with Paprosky Type 3B acetabular defects, which represented 3% (30 of 955) of the acetabular revisions we performed during the study period. Minimum followup was 2 years (mean, 57 months; range, 28–108 months). Seven patients (eight hips) died during the study period, and three (11%) of these patients (four hips; 14%) were lost to followup before 2 years, leaving 23 patients (24 hips) with minimum 2-year followup. Sixteen patients were women. The mean age of the patients was 67 years (range, 47–85 years) and mean BMI was 28 kg/m2 (range, 23–39 kg/m2). Revisions and complications were identified by chart review; hip scores were registered in our institution’s longitudinal database. Pre- and postoperative radiographs were analyzed by the patient’s surgeon to determine whether migration, fracture of fixation screws, or continued bone loss had occurred.ResultsThere have been four subsequent surgical interventions: two failures secondary to sepsis, and one stem revision and one open reduction internal fixation for periprosthetic femoral fracture. There were two minor complications managed nonoperatively, but all of the components were noted to be well-fixed with no obvious migration or loosening observed on the most recent radiographs. Harris hip scores improved from a mean of 42 (SD, ± 16) before surgery to 65 (SD, ± 18) at latest followup (p < 0.001).ConclusionsCustom acetabular triflange components represent yet another tool in the reconstructive surgeon’s armamentarium. These devices can be helpful in situations of catastrophic bone loss.Level of EvidenceLevel IV, therapeutic study.

[1]  M. Müller,et al.  Revision arthroplasty using an anti-protrusio cage for massive acetabular bone deficiency. , 1992, Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-british Volume.

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

[3]  Early experience with eccentric acetabular components in revision total hip arthroplasty. , 1996, American journal of orthopedics.

[4]  Sutherland Cj Early experience with eccentric acetabular components in revision total hip arthroplasty. , 1996 .

[5]  W. Harris,et al.  Bulk Structural Autogenous Grafts and Allografts for Reconstruction of the Acetabulum in Total Hip Arthroplasty. Sixteen-Year-Average Follow-up* , 1997, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[6]  A. Gross Revision Arthroplasty of the Acetabulum with Restoration of Bone Stock , 1999 .

[7]  W H Harris,et al.  High placement of an acetabular component inserted without cement in a revision total hip arthroplasty. Results after a mean of ten years. , 1999, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[8]  D. Berry,et al.  Pelvic discontinuity in revision total hip arthroplasty. , 1999, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[9]  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.

[10]  J. Stiehl,et al.  Reconstruction of major column defects and pelvic discontinuity in revision total hip arthroplasty. , 2000, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[11]  C. Colwell,et al.  Bilobed Oblong Porous Coated Acetabular Components in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty , 2000, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[12]  K. Saleh,et al.  Revision total hip arthroplasty with the use of structural acetabular allograft and reconstruction ring: a case series with a 10-year average follow-up. , 2000, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[13]  D. Deboer,et al.  Bridging Massive Acetabular Defects With the Triflange Cup: 2-to 9-Year Results , 2001, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[14]  A. Joshi,et al.  Results for a custom acetabular component for acetabular deficiency. , 2002, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[15]  D. Dennis,et al.  Use of Custom Triflanged Acetabular Components in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty , 2004, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[16]  A. Hanssen,et al.  Modular Porous Metal Augments for Treatment of Severe Acetabular Bone Loss during Revision Hip Arthroplasty , 2004, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[17]  S. Sporer,et al.  The Treatment of Acetabular Bone Defects with an Associated Pelvic Discontinuity , 2005, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[18]  S. Sporer,et al.  Acetabular revision using a trabecular metal acetabular component for severe acetabular bone loss associated with a pelvic discontinuity. , 2006, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[19]  J. C. Morrison,et al.  Revision total hip arthroplasty for pelvic discontinuity. , 2007, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[20]  S. H. Weeden,et al.  The use of tantalum porous metal implants for Paprosky 3A and 3B defects. , 2007, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[21]  A. Gross,et al.  Acetabular revision using an anti-protrusion (ilio-ischial) cage and trabecular metal acetabular component for severe acetabular bone loss associated with pelvic discontinuity. , 2009, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[22]  Juan José Ballester Alfaro,et al.  Trabecular Metal buttress augment and the Trabecular Metal cup-cage construct in revision hip arthroplasty for severe acetabular bone loss and pelvic discontinuity. , 2010, Hip international : the journal of clinical and experimental research on hip pathology and therapy.

[23]  J. Fernandes,et al.  Trabecular metal used for major bone loss in acetabular hip revision. , 2011, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[24]  Michael J. Christie,et al.  Pelvic Discontinuity Treated With Custom Triflange Component: A Reliable Option , 2012, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[25]  O. Bortolami,et al.  A minimum of 10-year follow-up of the Burch-Schneider cage and bulk allografts for the revision of pelvic discontinuity. , 2012, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[26]  M. Laitinen,et al.  Orthopaedic Reconstruction of Complex Pelvic Bone Defects. Evaluation of Various Treatment Methods , 2013, Scandinavian journal of surgery : SJS : official organ for the Finnish Surgical Society and the Scandinavian Surgical Society.

[27]  M. Mulier,et al.  A modified custom-made triflanged acetabular reconstruction ring (MCTARR) for revision hip arthroplasty with severe acetabular defects. , 2013, Acta orthopaedica Belgica.

[28]  M. Swank,et al.  Short-term results of a custom triflange acetabular component for massive acetabular bone loss in revision THA. , 2013, Orthopedics.