Reconstruction of acetabular defects with porous tantalum shells and augments in revision total hip arthroplasty at ten‐year follow‐up

Aims The use of trabecular metal (TM) shells supported by augments has provided good midterm results after revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) in patients with a bony defect of the acetabulum. The aim of this study was to assess the long‐term implant survivorship and radiological and clinical outcomes after acetabular revision using this technique. Patients and Methods Between 2006 and 2010, 60 patients (62 hips) underwent acetabular revision using a combination of a TM shell and augment. A total of 51 patients (53 hips) had complete follow‐up at a minimum of seven years and were included in the study. Of these patients, 15 were men (29.4%) and 36 were women (70.6%). Their mean age at the time of revision THA was 64.6 years (28 to 85). Three patients (5.2%) had a Paprosky IIA defect, 13 (24.5%) had a type IIB defect, six (11.3%) had a type IIC defect, 22 (41.5%) had a type IIIA defect, and nine (17%) had a type IIIB defect. Five patients (9.4%) also had pelvic discontinuity. Results The overall survival of the acetabular component at a mean of ten years postoperatively was 92.5%. Three hips (5.6%) required further revision due to aseptic loosening, and one (1.9%) required revision for infection. Three hips with aseptic loosening failed, due to insufficient screw fixation of the shell in two and pelvic discontinuity in one. The mean Harris Hip Score improved significantly from 55 (35 to 68) preoperatively to 81 points (68 to 99) at the latest follow‐up (p < 0.001). Conclusion The reconstruction of acetabular defects with TM shells and augments showed excellent long‐term results. Supplementary screw fixation of the shell should be performed in every patient. Alternative techniques should be considered to address pelvic disconinuity.

[1]  S. Konan,et al.  Reconstruction of failed acetabular component in the presence of severe acetabular bone loss: a systematic review , 2019, MUSCULOSKELETAL SURGERY.

[2]  G. Wassilew,et al.  Jumbocups in der Revision , 2017, Zeitschrift für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie.

[3]  W. Shon,et al.  Acetabular Reconstruction in Total Hip Arthroplasty , 2016, Hip & pelvis.

[4]  E. Garcia-Cimbrelo,et al.  THA Revisions Using Impaction Allografting With Mesh Is Durable for Medial but Not Lateral Acetabular Defects , 2015, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[5]  M. Whitehouse,et al.  Continued Good Results With Modular Trabecular Metal Augments for Acetabular Defects in Hip Arthroplasty at 7 to 11 Years , 2015, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[6]  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.

[7]  C. McCollough,et al.  Bone remodeling around porous metal cementless acetabular components. , 2010, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[8]  M. A. Miranda,et al.  Use of jumbo cups for revision of acetabulae with large bony defects. , 2010, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[9]  J. Jacobs,et al.  Applications of porous tantalum in total hip arthroplasty. , 2006, The Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.

[10]  Joshua J Jacobs,et al.  Experimental and clinical performance of porous tantalum in orthopedic surgery. , 2006, Biomaterials.

[11]  H. Röttinger,et al.  Minimal-invasiver anterolateraler Zugang in der Hüftendoprothetik , 2006, Der Orthopäde.

[12]  C. Engh,et al.  Radiographic Signs of Osseointegration in Porous-coated Acetabular Components , 2006, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[13]  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.

[14]  A. Gross,et al.  The Current Role of Structural Grafts and Cages in Revision Arthroplasty of the Hip , 2004, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[15]  K. Gustke Jumbo cup or high hip center: is bigger better? , 2004, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[16]  R. Bourne,et al.  The fate of cementless jumbo cups in revision hip arthroplasty. , 2003, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[17]  J. Callaghan,et al.  Revision of a Cemented Acetabular Component to a Cementless Acetabular Component: A Ten to Fourteen‐Year Follow‐up Study , 2001, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[18]  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.

[19]  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.

[20]  S. Delp,et al.  How Superior Placement of the Joint Center in Hip Arthroplasty Affects the Abductor Muscles , 1996, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[21]  D. Garbuz,et al.  Revision of the Acetabular Component of a Total Hip Arthroplasty with a Massive Structural Allograft. Study with a Minimum Five-Year Follow-up* , 1996, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[22]  W. Harris,et al.  Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. , 1969, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.