Acetabular Revision Surgery with Tantalum Trabecular Metal Acetabular Cup for Failed Acetabular Cage Reconstruction with Bone Allografts: A Retrospective Study with Mid- to Long-Term Follow-Up
Abstract
:1. Background
2. Methods
2.1. Patients
2.2. Surgical Procedure
2.3. Outcome Assessment
2.4. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Herberts, P.; Malchau, H. Long-term registration has improved the quality of hip replacement: A review of the Swedish THR Register comparing 160,000 cases. Acta Orthop. Scand. 2000, 71, 111–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Berry, D.J. Antiprotrusio cages for acetabular revision. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2004, 420, 106–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Goodman, S.; Saastamoinen, H.; Shasha, N.; Gross, A. Complications of ilioischial reconstruction rings in revision total hip arthroplasty. J. Arthroplast. 2004, 19, 436–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saleh, K.J.; Jaroszynski, G.; Woodgate, I.; Saleh, L.; Gross, A.E. Revision total hip arthroplasty with the use of structural acetabular allograft and reconstruction ring: A case series with a 10-year average follow-up. J. Arthroplast. 2000, 15, 951–958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Garbuz, D.; Morsi, E.; Gross, A.E. Revision of the acetabular component of a total hip arthroplasty with a massive structural allograft: Study with a minimum five-year follow-up. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Am. 1996, 78, 693–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Perka, C.; Ludwig, R. Reconstruction of segmental defects during revision procedures of the acetabulum with the Burch-Schneider anti-protrusio cage. J. Arthroplasty 2001, 16, 568–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bobyn, J.D.; Stackpool, G.J.; Hacking, S.A.; Tanzer, M.; Krygier, J.J. Characteristics of bone ingrowth and interface mechanics of a new porous tantalum biomaterial. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Br. 1999, 81, 907–914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garcia-Cimbrelo, E. Porous-coated cementless acetabular cups in revision surgery: A 6- to 11-year follow-up study. J. Arthroplast. 1999, 14, 397–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Unger, A.S.; Lewis, R.J.; Gruen, T. Evaluation of a porous tantalum uncemented acetabular cup in revision total hip arthroplasty: Clinical and radiological results of 60 hips. J. Arthroplast. 2005, 20, 1002–1009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lakstein, D.; Backstein, D.; Safir, O.; Kosashvili, Y.; Gross, A.E. Trabecular Metal cups for acetabular defects with 50% or less host bone contact. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2009, 467, 2318–2324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chang, C.H.; Hu, C.C.; Chen, C.C.; Mahajan, J.; Chang, Y.; Shih, H.N.; Kwon, Y.M. Revision total hip arthroplasty for Paprosky Type III acetabular defect with structural allograft and tantalum trabecular metal acetabular cup. Orthopedics 2018, 41, e861–e867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Paprosky, W.G.; Perona, P.G.; Lawrence, J.M. Acetabular defect classification and surgical reconstruction in revision arthroplasty. A 6-year follow-up evaluation. J. Arthroplast. 1994, 9, 33–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saleh, K.J.; Holtzman, J.; Gafni, A.; Saleh, L.; Jaroszynski, G.; Wong, P.; Woodgate, I.; Davis, A.; Gross, A.E. Development, test reliability and validation of a classification for revision hip arthroplasty. J. Orthop. Res. 2001, 19, 50–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dawson, J.; Fitzpatrick, R.; Carr, A.; Murray, D. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total hip replacement. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Br. 1996, 78, 185–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moore, M.S.; McAuley, J.P.; Young, A.M.; Engh, C.A., Sr. Radiographic signs of osseointegration in porous-coated acetabular components. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2006, 444, 176–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pierannunzii, L.; Zagra, L. Bone grafts, bone graft extenders, substitutes and enhancers for acetabular reconstruction in revision total hip arthroplasty. EFORT Open Rev. 2017, 1, 431–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gross, A.E.; Goodman, S. The current role of structural grafts and cages in revision arthroplasty of the hip. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2004, 429, 193–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hosny, H.A.H.; El-Bakoury, A.; Fekry, H.; Keenan, J. Mid-term results of graft augmentation prosthesis ii cage and impacted allograft bone in revision hip arthroplasty. J. Arthroplast. 2018, 33, 1487–1493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abolghasemian, M.; Sadeghi Naini, M.; Tangsataporn, S.; Lee, P.; Backstein, D.; Safir, O.; Kuzyk, P.; Gross, A.E. Reconstruction of massive uncontained acetabular defects using allograft with cage or ring reinforcement: An assessment of the ‘raft’s ability to restore bone stock and its impact on the outcome of re-revision. Bone Joint J. 2014, 96, 319–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Enneking, W.F.; Burchardt, H.; Puhl, J.J.; Piotrowski, G. Physical and biological aspects of repair in dog cortical-bone transplants. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Am. 1975, 57, 237–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leali, P.T.; Balsano, M.; Maestretti, G.; Brusoni, M.; Amorese, V.; Ciurlia, E.; Andreozzi, M.; Caggiari, G.; Doria, C. Efficacy of teriparatide vs neridronate in adults with osteogenesis imperfecta type I: A prospective randomized international clinical study. Clin. Cases Miner. Bone Metab. 2017, 14, 153–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Caggiari, G.; Leali, P.T.; Mosele, G.R.; Puddu, L.; Badessi, F.; Doria, C. Safety and effectiveness of teriparatide vs alendronate in postmenopausal osteoporosis: A prospective non randomized clinical study. Clin. Cases Miner. Bone Metab. 2016, 13, 200–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Marongiu, G.; Contini, A.; Cozzi Lepri, A.; Donadu, M.; Verona, M.; Capone, A. The Treatment of Acute Diaphyseal Long-bones Fractures with Orthobiologics and Pharmacological Interventions for Bone Healing Enhancement: A Systematic Review of Clinical Evidence. Bioengineering 2020, 7, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Clement, R.G.; Ray, A.G.; MacDonald, D.J.; Wade, F.A.; Burnett, R.; Moran, M. Trabecular metal use in Paprosky Type 2 and 3 acetabular defects: 5-year follow-up. J. Arthroplast. 2016, 31, 863–867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kosashvili, Y.; Safir, O.; Backstein, D.; Lakstein, D.; Gross, A.E. Salvage of failed acetabular cages by nonbuttressed trabecular metal cups. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2010, 468, 466–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Christie, M.J. Clinical applications of trabecular metal. Am. J. Orthop. 2002, 31, 219–220. [Google Scholar]
- Meneghini, R.M.; Meyer, C.; Buckley, C.A.; Hanssen, A.D.; Lewallen, D.G. Mechanical stability of novel highly porous metal acetabular components in revision total hip arthroplasty. J. Arthroplast. 2010, 25, 337–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variable | All Hips (N = 12) |
---|---|
Sex, n | |
Male | 5 |
Female | 7 |
Mean age at index revision surgery, years (SD) | 56.1 (14.7) |
Mean age at re-revision surgery, years (SD) | 61.5 (14.6) |
Mean interval between index revision and re-revision, years (SD) | 5.4 (3.4) |
Mean follow-up after re-revision, years (SD) | 8.6 (4) |
Reason for index revision surgery, n | |
Loose acetabular component | 9 |
Second-stage reimplantation for infection | 3 |
Paprosky classification for index revision, n | |
IIIA | 5 |
IIIB | 6 |
Pelvic discontinuity | 1 |
Paprosky classification for re-revision, n | |
I | 1 |
IIA | 4 |
IIB | 4 |
IIC | 2 |
IIIA | 1 |
Defect (n) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Surgery | Type I | Type II | Type III | Type IV | Type V |
Index revision | 1 | 10 | 1 | ||
Re-revision | 4 | 3 | 5 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Hsu, C.-H.; Hu, C.-C.; Chang, C.-H.; Chang, Y.-H.; Shih, H.-N.; Chen, C.-C. Acetabular Revision Surgery with Tantalum Trabecular Metal Acetabular Cup for Failed Acetabular Cage Reconstruction with Bone Allografts: A Retrospective Study with Mid- to Long-Term Follow-Up. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 3428. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11123428
Hsu C-H, Hu C-C, Chang C-H, Chang Y-H, Shih H-N, Chen C-C. Acetabular Revision Surgery with Tantalum Trabecular Metal Acetabular Cup for Failed Acetabular Cage Reconstruction with Bone Allografts: A Retrospective Study with Mid- to Long-Term Follow-Up. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2022; 11(12):3428. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11123428
Chicago/Turabian StyleHsu, Chen-Heng, Chih-Chien Hu, Chih-Hsiang Chang, Yu-Han Chang, Hsin-Nung Shih, and Chun-Chieh Chen. 2022. "Acetabular Revision Surgery with Tantalum Trabecular Metal Acetabular Cup for Failed Acetabular Cage Reconstruction with Bone Allografts: A Retrospective Study with Mid- to Long-Term Follow-Up" Journal of Clinical Medicine 11, no. 12: 3428. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11123428