Clinical and radiological results of impaction bone allograft technique in acetabular revisions associated with massive bone stock deficiencies: Four to seven years follow-up study

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to determine the acetabular bone lesion size (in millimeters) from which impacted bone graft failure starts to occur more frequently, through simple anteroposterior hip radiographs, and whether measurement of the defect on simple radiographs maintains the same pattern in inter and intraobserver assessments.MethodsThirty-eight anteroposterior pelvic-view radiographs from patients undergoing revision of an acetabular prosthesis were retrospectively analyzed and assessed. In the vertical plane, the bilacrimal line was measured in millimeters from the farthest point found on the bone edge of the acetabular osteolysis to the top edge of the cementation or of the acetabular implant in uncemented cases. The base was taken to be a line perpendicular to bilacrimal line, with the aim of eliminating any pelvic tilt effects. This measurement was named the vertical size of failure. Radiographs produced four years after the operation were analyzed to investigate any failure of the technique.ResultsThe graft failure rate in the study group was 26.3%. The failures occurred in cases with an initial bone defect larger than 11 mm. No cases with measurements smaller than this evolved with failure of the revision. The highest incidence of graft failure occurred in cases described as advanced according to the “Paprosky” classification.ConclusionFailure of acetabular revision arthroplasty using an impacted graft did not present any statistically significant correlation with the vertical extent of the lesion on simple anteroposterior radiographs, as a predictor of treatment failure.

show abstract

“…El-Kawy et al 24 evaluated 28 patients classified as Paprosky type 3 and found 96.4% good results at 72 months of follow-up.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is the size of the acetabular bone lesion a predictive factor for failure in revisions of total hip arthroplasty using an impacted allograft?

Guimarães

Yonamine

Faria

et al. 2016

Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia (English Edition)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Outcome of different reconstruction options using allografts in revision total hip arthroplasty for severe acetabular bone loss: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Strahl

Boese

Ries

et al. 2023

Arch Orthop Trauma Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Several studies have reported good to excellent outcomes of revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) using allografts for treating severe acetabular bone defects. However, precise information on the impact of allograft type and reconstruction method is not available. Material and methods Systematic literature search was performed in Medline and Web of Science including patients with acetabular bone loss classified according to the Paprosky classification who underwent rTHA involving the use of allografts. Studies with a minimum follow-up of 2 years published between 1990 and 2021 were included. Kendall correlation was applied to determine the relationship between Paprosky grade and allograft type use. Proportion meta-analyses with 95% confidence interval (CI) were performed to summarize the success of various reconstruction options, including allograft type, fixation method, and reconstruction system. Results Twenty-seven studies met the inclusion criteria encompassing 1561 cases from 1491 patients with an average age of 64 years (range 22–95). The average follow-up period was 7.9 years (range 2–22). Structural bulk and morselized grafts were used in equal proportions for all Paprosky acetabular defect types. Their use increased significantly with the type of acetabular defect (r = 0.69, p = 0.049). The overall success rate ranged from 61.3 to 98.3% with a random effect pooled estimate of 90% [95% CI 87–93]. Trabecular metal augments (93% [76–98]) and shells (97% [84–99]) provided the highest success rates. However, no significant differences between reconstruction systems, allograft types and fixation methods were observed (p > 0.05 for all comparisons). Conclusion Our findings highlight the use of bulk or morselized allograft for massive bone loss independent of Paprosky classification type and indicate similar good mid- to long-term outcomes of the different acetabular reconstruction options using allografts. Clinical trial registration PROSPERO: CRD42020223093.

show abstract

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

García-Rey¹,

Madero

García-Cimbrelo³

2015

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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

show abstract

Clinical and radiological results of impaction bone allograft technique in acetabular revisions associated with massive bone stock deficiencies: Four to seven years follow-up study

Cited by 5 publications

References 14 publications

Is the size of the acetabular bone lesion a predictive factor for failure in revisions of total hip arthroplasty using an impacted allograft?

Is the size of the acetabular bone lesion a predictive factor for failure in revisions of total hip arthroplasty using an impacted allograft?

Outcome of different reconstruction options using allografts in revision total hip arthroplasty for severe acetabular bone loss: a systematic review and meta-analysis

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About