Revision of Type III and Type IVB Acetabular Defects With Burch–Schneider Anti-Protrusio Cages

Ilyas, Imran; Alrumaih, Husam A.; Kashif, Syed; Rabbani, Samar A.; Faqihi, Aqeel H.

doi:10.1016/j.arth.2014.08.014

Cited by 31 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The long-term results of using a major column structural allograft and protecting it with a reconstruction cage have been acceptable. 8,9 Recently, Regis et al 21 reported a survivorship of 72.2% with a mean follow-up of 13.5 years (10.5 to 16.6) and Ilyas et al 22 a survivorship of 84.9% with a mean follow-up of 6.71 years (2 to 13.9). Overall, the results of using an acetabular cage to support the reconstruction of a massive acetabular bone defect with a major column structural graft are reasonable, although the technique is often considered to be a salvage procedure.…”

Section: Major Column Structural Allografts and Reconstructive Cagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of cages in the management of severe acetabular bone defects at revision arthroplasty

Mäkinen

Fichman

Watts

et al. 2016

The Bone & Joint Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An uncemented hemispherical acetabular component is the mainstay of acetabular revision and gives excellent long-term results. Occasionally, the degree of acetabular bone loss means that a hemispherical component will be unstable when sited in the correct anatomical location or there is minimal bleeding host bone left for biological fixation. On these occasions an alternative method of reconstruction has to be used. A major column structural allograft has been shown to restore the deficient bone stock to some degree, but it needs to be off-loaded with a reconstruction cage to prevent collapse of the graft. The use of porous metal augments is a promising method of overcoming some of the problems associated with structural allograft. If the defect is large, the augment needs to be protected by a cage to allow ingrowth to occur. Cup-cage reconstruction is an effective method of treating chronic pelvic discontinuity and large contained or uncontained bone defects. This paper presents the indications, surgical techniques and outcomes of various methods which use acetabular reconstruction cages for revision total hip arthroplasty.

show abstract

Section: Major Column Structural Allografts and Reconstructive Cagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of cages in the management of severe acetabular bone defects at revision arthroplasty

Mäkinen

Fichman

Watts

et al. 2016

The Bone & Joint Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…bone defects and the insufficient documentation of the initial clinical findings [6,7,13,15,22]. There are several published classification systems for acetabular bone defects in THA [1,3,5,11,12,19,20].…”

Section: Number Of Patientsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Acetabular defect classification and management

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Despite the lack of objective evidence, we believe that if the original acetabulum cannot be identified during surgery, the acetabular component could be placed on the bone socket of the pseudoacetabulum [26], while a restrictive liner could be used to avoid potential instability and dislocation of the hip prosthesis resulting from the retroversion of the acetabular component. For patients with type C injury, the surgical procedures for implanting the acetabular component are similar to revision surgery [27] (Fig. 6).…”

Section: Surgical Treatmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnosis, Preoperative Evaluation, Classification and Total Hip Arthroplasty in Patients with Long-Term Unreduced Hip Joint Dislocation, Secondary Osteoarthritis and Pseudoarthrosis

Liu

Zhuang

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Neglected long-term unreduced hip joint dislocation with secondary osteoarthritis and pseudoarthrosis poses a great challenge to hip surgeons. However, as this is an uncommon injury, few studies have systematically investigated these patients.Methods We retrospectively reviewed 16 patients from 2010 to 2017. The diagnostic value of three different kinds of common radiological examinations were evaluated. We evaluated the bone conditions of the original acetabulum and classified the patients into three types (four subtypes). The surgical procedures and prognosis of the patients were also investigated.Results With the combined application of X-ray, CT scans and 3D reconstruction, 93.8% of these patients (sensitivity = 93.8%, Youden’s index = 0.93, intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.95) could be diagnosed correctly. There were 6/16 (37.5%) type A patients, 4/16 (25.0%) type B1 patients, 5/16 (31.3%) type B2 patients and 1/16 (6.3%) type C patient. For patients with type A injury, the surgical procedures for total hip arthroplasty were similar to “standard” total hip arthroplasty. For patients with type B injury, due to atrophy or partial bone deficiency of the original acetabulum, the surgical procedure for total hip arthroplasty was probably similar to those for patients with developmental dysplasia of the hip. For patients with type C injury, the situation was similar to that of revision surgery. The average Harris hip score postoperatively was 89.94 ± 5.78 points (range: 79–98 points).Conclusions The new classification system could help surgeons estimate potential difficulties during total hip arthroplasty. The prognosis of most patients after total hip arthroplasty is expected to be excellent or good.

show abstract

Revision of Type III and Type IVB Acetabular Defects With Burch–Schneider Anti-Protrusio Cages

Cited by 31 publications

References 25 publications

The role of cages in the management of severe acetabular bone defects at revision arthroplasty

The role of cages in the management of severe acetabular bone defects at revision arthroplasty

Acetabular defect classification and management

Diagnosis, Preoperative Evaluation, Classification and Total Hip Arthroplasty in Patients with Long-Term Unreduced Hip Joint Dislocation, Secondary Osteoarthritis and Pseudoarthrosis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About