Acetabular revision with impacted morsellised cancellous bone grafting and a cemented acetabular component

Background Most acetabular revisions are managed with cementless hemispherical or elliptical metal implants relying on bone ingrowth. Nonetheless, loss of acetabular bone stock and inability to achieve secure component fixation represent challenges in the setting of revision total hip arthroplasty. Impaction bone grafting (IBG) using allograft represents one option for treatment of this problem. However, cup migration and bone graft resorption are limitations when IBG is used for large segmental defects, and the precise role of IBG as well as the use of mesh (and the kinds of defects for which mesh does not work well) in this setting remains unknown.Questions/purposes We therefore evaluated patients undergoing acetabular revision surgery using IBG and a cemented cup in large bone defects to determine (1) the frequency with which the hip center could be restored in hips with Paprosky 3A and 3B defects and in hips with or without the use of metallic mesh during surgery; (2) survivorship of IBG acetabular-revision reconstructions in patients with severe Paprosky 3A and 3B defects; and (3) risk factors for failure of the reconstruction, including the use of mesh and defect severity (3A versus 3B). Methods Between 1997 and 2009, we performed 226 acetabular revisions using IBG. During that time, indications for using IBG in this setting included Paprosky 3A and 3B defects without pelvic discontinuity. Of these, 204 (90.2%) were available for followup at a minimum of 5 years (mean, 10 years; range, 5-17 years). There were 100 hips with an intraoperative bone defect of Paprosky 3A and 104 with a 3B. Medial or rim acetabular uncontained defects were treated with medial and/or lateral metallic mesh in 142 hips. We determined the postoperative radiological cup position and acetabular reconstruction of the hip center according to Ranawat in both groups. We assessed the appearance of cup loosening and the possible risk factors with regression analysis. Results Mean postoperative acetabular abduction angle and vertical, horizontal, and hip rotation center distances improved (p \ 0.001 in all parameters). Nine hips showed radiological loosening in the group with bone defect 3A and 16 in Group 3B. The survival rate for loosening at 15 years was 83% (95% confidence interval [CI], 71%-95%) for Group 3A and 73% (95% CI, 60%-84%) for Group 3B (p = 0.04). The survivorship for loosening when using mesh or not at 15 years was: no mesh 89% (95% CI, 74%-99%), medial mesh 85% (95% CI, 72%-97%), lateral mesh 80% (95% CI, 67%-91%), and medial and lateral meshes

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 75%

THA Revisions Using Impaction Allografting With Mesh Is Durable for Medial but Not Lateral Acetabular Defects

García-Rey¹,

Madero

García-Cimbrelo³

2015

“…Jumbo cups have been associated with favorable survivorship of 92% to 96% at 14 to 16 years [19,27] where adequate support can be obtained. Acetabular impaction grafting has shown promising results with 87% survivorship for aseptic loosening at 20 years and 75% for any cause of failure [30]; however, it is technically demanding, time-consuming, and may be associated with higher failure rates in massive bone loss [6]. Combining the technique with trabecular metal augments to support large areas of graft offers promising early results [15].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Continued Good Results With Modular Trabecular Metal Augments for Acetabular Defects in Hip Arthroplasty at 7 to 11 Years

Whitehouse

Masri

Duncan

et al. 2015

103

Background Reconstruction of large acetabular defects remains a substantial challenge in hip arthroplasty. There remains a paucity of data on the long-term results of acetabular trabecular metal augments. Questions/purposes The purpose of this study was to assess the survivorship, clinical outcomes, restoration of center of rotation of the hip, and radiological signs of component fixation of trabecular metal augments in the context of reconstruction of acetabular defects. Methods Between 2002 and 2005, we performed 56 revision (n = 53) and primary (n = 3) THAs using trabecular metal augments in combination with a trabecular metal acetabular component. Of the 56 patients, 16 (29%) died during followup. Of the 40 surviving patients, 37 (93%) had complete radiological followup, 23 (58%) had complete outcome questionnaire followup, and 17 (42%) provided partial questionnaire responses in the clinic or over the telephone. Median followup was 110 months (range, 88-128 months). During that period, we used these implants when preoperative templating indicated that an augment would be required to achieve acetabular implant stability with restoration of the hip center of rotation. We also chose during surgery to use an augment when we could not achieve a stable acetabular trial component without one. The combination of trabecular metal augments and trabecular metal shells was used in 18% (53 of 292) of our acetabular revisions during that time. Survivorship, functional outcome (WOMAC and Oxford hip score), health status (SF-12), and osseointegration according to the criteria of Moore and presence of radiolucencies were determined.

“…Impaction bone allografting was used for reconstruction in most of the revised cups (10 of 12 cups). Like in other series [45], the impression at rerevision was that the original bone grafting had been incorporated, and a new bone impacting grafting was performed because part of the existing graft looked viable and well healed to the host-bone. Unfortunately, we did not make core biopsies in any case to confirm whether the bone was viable on the periphery of the graft.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Impacted morselized bone allograft and cement in the acetabulum have been used in revision surgery [13,18,45,48] and bone graft incorporation has been reported in histologic studies [5,41,44,47]. In a goat model of impacted allografts, Schimmel et al [41] showed complete incorporation of the allograft by 48 weeks.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Survival and Fate of Acetabular Reconstruction With Impaction Grafting for Large Defects

García-Cimbrelo

Cruz-Pardos

García-Rey

et al. 2010

Background Impaction bone grafting has been used for acetabular reconstruction in revision surgery. However, most series do not establish differences in survival in revisions with differing severity of bone loss. Questions/purposes We therefore determined (1) the survival rate for rerevision associated with varying degrees of bone loss; (2) the frequency with which bone graft resorption occurred; and (3) whether the reconstruction restored the anatomic center of rotation of the hip. Methods We retrospectively reviewed 165 patients (181 hips) who underwent rerevision for major bone loss. Using the classification of Paprosky et al. 98 hips had a Grade 3A defect and 83 a Grade 3B. We determined survival rates for revision and graft resorption. Cup position was determined measuring vertical and horizontal positions and the distance from the center of the prosthetic femoral head to the normal center of rotation of the hip in both groups according to Ranawat. The minimum followup until rerevision or the latest evaluation was 0.3 years months (mean, 7.5 years; range, 0.3-17.7 years). Results The survival rate for revision at 8 years was 84% (95% confidence interval: 61-100) for Grade 3A and 82% (95% confidence interval: 68-100) for Grade 3B. Twelve hips were rerevised. Seventeen grafts showed bone resorption. Acetabular cup position was anatomically restored in both Grades 3A and 3B. Conclusions The midterm results for impacted bone allograft and cemented all-polyethylene cups were similar in both Grade 3A and Grade 3B hips. Acetabular reconstruction allows anatomic positioning of the cups and is associated with a low rate of rerevision.