Metal Augments Used in Revision Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Single-Arm Meta-Analysis

Xiong, Chenao; Meng, Dexuan; Ni, Renhua; Cai, Hong

doi:10.1016/j.arth.2022.08.010

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While serving as a void filler in multiple different shapes, it has excellent innate properties that can promote both primary biologic fixation and supplementary fixation for adjunctive implants [ 13 ]. Porous tantalum MA is now being widely used with promising midterm results [ 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 ], which are fortified by a recent systematic and meta-analysis review that investigated the safety and effectiveness of MA [ 32 ]. However, despite these advantages, there are cases where an acetabular defect combined with pelvic discontinuity is so large that using conventional MAs or a jumbo cup alone is a challenge, and ARR is necessary in order to bridge the pelvic bone [ 29 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Utilizing an Acetabular Reinforcement Ring with a Metal Augment: A Minimum Eight-Year Follow-Up Study

Kim

Chang

et al. 2023

Medicina

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Objectives: An acetabular reinforcement ring (ARR) with a structural allograft is conventionally used to treat large acetabular bone defects or discontinuity during revision hip arthroplasty. However, ARR is prone to failure due to bone resorption and lack of incorporation. Here, we investigated the surgical outcomes of the patients who underwent revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) using ARR combined with a metal augment (MA). Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed data from 10 consecutive patients who had a minimum 8-year follow-up after revision hip arthroplasty using ARR with MA in Paprosky type III acetabular defect. We collected patient demographics, surgical details, clinical scores (including Harris Hip Score (HHS)), postoperative complications, and 8-year survival rates. Results: Six male and four female patients were included. The mean age was 64.3 years, and the mean follow-up duration was 104.3 months (96.0–112.0 months). Trauma-related diagnosis was the most common reason for index surgery. Three patients underwent all component revision, and seven underwent cup revision. Six were confirmed as Paprosky type IIIA and four as type IIIB. The mean HHS at the final follow-up was 81.5 (72–91). One patient was diagnosed with prosthetic joint infection at the 3-month follow-up; therefore, the minimum 8-year survival rate with our technique was 90.0% (95% confidence interval, 90.3–118.5%). Conclusions: The satisfactory mid- to long-term results of revision THA suggest that ARR combined with tantalum MA is a viable revision option for treating severe acetabular defects with pelvic discontinuity.

show abstract