Acetabular revision using trabecular titanium (Delta TT) revision cups: A retrospective case series

Abstract

Background: The annual rate of primary THA has been increasing with new designs promoting THA in the younger population, therefore increasing rates and complexity of hip revision surgeries. Different types of acetabular defects in hip revisions, usually make the use of primary cementless cups quite difficult. In complex defects, using cages with cemented cups or combining cementless cups with metal augments, are possible reconstruction solutions. The Delta TT acetabular revision system provides a solution to complex defects combining the advantages of both cage construct and primary implants, with modularity that helps restore anatomical hip centre and biomechanics. The aim of this study is to evaluate the short-term results of the use of the Delta TT revision system in acetabular revision surgeries. Type of the study: A retrospective case series. Methods: 24 patients underwent acetabular revision using (Delta TT) revision system, from 2018 to 2021. The mean follow-up was 20.75 months. Clinical and functional outcomes were assessed using Harris Hip Score. Results: The use of the Delta TT revision system in acetabular revision surgery provided adequate pain relief, and early patient mobilization. The preoperative HHS mean of 29.88 improved to a mean of 85.21, at the last, follow-up. None of the patients developed periprosthetic infection or loosening or nerve palsy during the follow-up period. Conclusion: Short-term clinical outcomes for the use of the Delta TT revision cup system in acetabular revision are encouraging with good functional outcomes and patient satisfaction.

Trabecular titanium cups in hip revision surgery: a systematic review of the literature

“…In two cases, the type of reoperation was not specified ( 22 ). Three studies reported no reoperation due to aseptic loosening in their case series ( 20 , 24 , 26 ).…”

“…The general characteristics of the included studies are reported in Table 1 . Three studies included patients that underwent surgery with only Delta TT revision cups for severe acetabular defects ( 20 , 21 , 24 ). In comparison, the other five studies reported results of both Delta TT one and Delta TT revision cups in moderate and severe revision ( 19 , 22 , 23 , 25 , 26 ).…”

“…Six out of eight studies (395 hips) reported the use of IM or “spacers” ( Table 4 ) ( 19 , 20 , 22 - 24 , 26 ). The prevalence of the use of spacers was 42.7% (169 hips out of 395).…”

“…Seven out of eight studies reported HM use or “augment” (458 hips) ( 19 , 20 , 22 - 26 ). The prevalence of the use of hemispherical modules was 18.8% (86 hips).…”

“…Fourth, the included studies used various PROMs, and average values and SDs were presented inconsistently, which further restricted the number of comparative research. Four studies (213 hips) reported the average preoperative and postoperative HHS ( 19 , 20 , 22 , 24 ), while three studies (170 hips) reported the average preoperative and postoperative Mele D’Aubigne Score ( 21 , 25 , 26 ). Lastly, there was variability in the postoperative care in different studies following acetabular reconstruction with TT cups.…”