Bone defect map of the true acetabulum in hip dysplasia (Crowe type II and III) based on three-dimensional image reconstruction analysis

The high hip center technique (HHC) is considered to be feasible for acetabular reconstruction in patients with DDH, but there is little in-depth study of its specific impact on Crowe type II and III DDH. The purpose of this study was to simultaneously analyze the effect of HHC on bone coverage of the cup (CC) in the acetabular reconstruction of type II and III DDH patients and to propose a map of acetabular bone defects from the perspective of the cup. Forty-nine hip CT data of 39 patients with DDH (Crowe type II and III) were collected to simulate acetabular reconstruction by cup models of different sizes (diameter 38mm–50 mm, 2 mm increment) with the HHC technique. The frequency distribution was plotted by overlapping the portions of the 44 mm cups that were not covered by the host bone. The mean CC of cups with sizes of 38 mm, 40 mm, 42 mm, 44 mm, 46 mm, 48 mm, and 50 mm at the true acetabula were 77.85%, 76.71%, 75.73%, 74.56%, 73.68%, 72.51%, and 71.75%, respectively, and the maximum CC increments were 21.24%, 21.58%, 20.86%, 20.04%, 18.62%, 17.18%, and 15.42% (P < 0.001), respectively, after the cups were elevated from the true acetabula. The bone defect map shows that 95% of type II and III DDH acetabula had posterosuperior bone defects, and approximately 60% were located outside the force line of the hip joint. Acetabular cups can meet a CC of more than 70% at the true acetabulum, and approximately 60% of Crowe type II and III DDH patients can obtain satisfactory CC at the true acetabulum by using a 44-mm cup without additional operations.

Minimum 10 years clinical and radiological outcomes of acetabular revisions of total hip arthroplasties with tricalcium phosphate/hydroxyapatite bone graft substitute

Background Aseptic loosening is the most frequent indication for revision of total hip arthroplasty. Revision arthroplasty of acetabular component is a challenge for every surgeon because they have to simultaneously deal with the reconstruction of bone defects, adequate implant geometry and stable fixation. Allografts are the most frequently used materials in reconstruction of bone loss during revision surgeries. Because of an increasing number of revision hip arthroplasties and poor availability of allografts, we decided to use bone graft substitutes in acetabular revisions. Methods Between September 2005 and January 2010, 44 revision arthroplasties in 43 patients were performed with the use of bone graft substitutes for acetabular defect reconstruction in revision of total hip arthroplasty. Acetabular bone defects were classified according to Paprosky. Seventeen hips were classified as IIA, 3 hips IIB, 3 hips IIC, 10 hips IIIA and 11 hips IIIB. Acetabular bone defects were reconstructed with tricalcium phosphate/hydroxyapatite bone graft substitute - BoneSave. Clinical and radiological examination was performed after 3 months, 1 year and then annually. Harris hip score was used for clinical evaluation. Survival analysis was performed with Kaplan-Meier method with aseptic loosening as the definition of endpoint. Results The average follow-up period is 12 (range from 10 to 15) years. During the follow-up, three patients died after 24 months because of causes not related to surgery. None of the patients was lost to follow-up. The evaluation of clinical results revealed an increase in pre-operative HHS from average 38.3 (range 25 to 55) points to average 86.3 (range 45 to 95) points at the most recent follow-up. Radiographic evaluation showed the migration of one revision cage 12 months after surgery. Revision arthroplasty performed after 14 months revealed the partial incorporation of bone graft substitute. There were not any cases of loosening of revision acetabular cup at the most recent follow up examination in the remaining 39 patients. Bone graft substitute was not absorbed in all of these patients. The survival after 10 years amounted to 97.56%. Conclusion Bone graft substitute Bone Save may be suitable for acetabular revision surgery, however preoperative bone defect is critical for success and determining of a surgical technique, so this is multifactorial in this challenge surgery.

Trabecular Metal Augments for Treatment of Acetabular Defects: A Systematic Review

Severe acetabular bone defects during revision total hip arthroplasty are often treated with a hemispherical shell and highly porous modular metal augments. Several papers have been already published reporting on the clinical performance of trabecular metal (TM) augments combined with a hemispherical shell for the management of severe acetabular defects. However, no systematic review of the literature has been published to date. The U.S. National Library of Medicine (PubMed/MEDLINE), EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were queried for publications utilizing keywords pertinent to tantalum augments and TM (Zimmer Biomet, Warsaw, Indiana) augments, revision THA, clinical outcomes, and complications associated with these procedures. Fifteen articles were found to be suitable for inclusion in the present study, which included 769 revision cases where acetabular augments were used. The majority of acetabular bone defects were type 3 according to the Paprosky classification (type 2A in 58 cases, 7.2%; type 2B in 139 cases, 17.2%; type 2C in 72 cases, 8.9%; type 3A in 360 cases, 44.7%; and type 3B in 177 cases, 22.0%). The overall revision rate for the 769 acetabular revisions with augments was 5.7% (46 cases) at mean mid-term follow-up. The most common reasons for revision were dislocation (3.3%), periprosthetic joint infection (2.9%), and aseptic loosening (2.7%). TM augments combined with hemispherical shells were found to be effective in the treatment of moderate-to-severe acetabular bone defects with a 5% acetabular component revision rate at mean mid-term follow-up. The literature did not delineate whether pelvic discontinuity was associated with a higher risk of aseptic loosening after TM augment. Further studies are needed to clarify the impact of additional screw fixation on survival rates, and whether the type of augment (wedge augments, “flying buttress” augments, column augments), the configuration used, and the number of screws influence clinical and radiographic outcomes.

Impaction bone grafting in hip re-revision surgery

Aims Bone stock restoration of acetabular bone defects using impaction bone grafting (IBG) in total hip arthroplasty may facilitate future re-revision in the event of failure of the reconstruction. We hypothesized that the acetabular bone defect during re-revision surgery after IBG was smaller than during the previous revision surgery. The clinical and radiological results of re-revisions with repeated use of IBG were also analyzed. Methods In a series of 382 acetabular revisions using IBG and a cemented component, 45 hips (45 patients) that had failed due to aseptic loosening were re-revised between 1992 and 2016. Acetabular bone defects graded according to Paprosky during the first and the re-revision surgery were compared. Clinical and radiological findings were analyzed over time. Survival analysis was performed using a competing risk analysis. Results Intraoperative bone defect during the initial revision included 19 Paprosky type IIIA and 29 Paprosky type IIIB hips; at re-revision, seven hips were Paprosky type II, 27 type IIIA and 11 were type IIIB (p = 0.020). The mean preoperative Harris Hip Score was 45.4 (SD 6.4), becoming 80.7 (SD 12.7) at the final follow-up. In all, 12 hips showed radiological migration of the acetabular component, and three required further revision surgery. The nine-year cumulative failure incidence (nine patients at risk) of the acetabular component for further revision surgery was 9.6% (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.9 to 21.0) for any cause, and 7.5% (95% CI 1.9 to 18.5) for aseptic loosening. Hips with a greater hip height had a higher risk for radiological migration (odds ratio 1.09, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.17; p = 0.008). Conclusion Bone stock restoration can be obtained using IBG in revision hip surgery. This technique is also useful in re-revision surgery; however, a better surgical technique including a closer distance to hip rotation centre could decrease the risk of radiological migration of the acetabular component. A longer follow-up is required to assess potential fixation deterioration. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(3):492–499.

Outcome and EBRA migration analysis of a reconstruction cage in acetabular revision arthroplasty: a clinical and radiological study

Purpose Restoration cages and bone allografts have been proposed to manage severe acetabular bone defects. We aimed to investigate the migration behaviour of a restoration cup and impacted allograft bone in severe acetabular defects with Einzel-Bild-Röntgen-Analyse (EBRA). Methods Applying a retrospective study design, 64 cases treated between 2009 and 2016 were reviewed. We determined the preoperative Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), pre- to postoperative WOMAC score, blood loss and functional outcome. From preoperative x rays, the acetabular deficiencies were classified according to Paprosky. Cup migration analyses were performed with EBRA. Results Mean age at surgery was 73 (range: 38–93) years. According to the classification by Paprosky et al., 50% (n = 32) of our patients showed a type III B and 28.1% (n = 18) a type III A defect. Radiological follow-up for migration analysis was 35 (range: 4–95) months. Migration analysis showed a mean cup migration of 0.7 mm (range: 5.7–9.6) medial and 1.8 mm (range: 1.7–12.6) cranial. Conclusion In conclusion, acetabular restoration cages in combination with bone impaction grafting showed a low revision rate at a mean follow-up of 35 months. Mean cup migration revealed low rates after 2 years and suggested a stable postoperative implant position.

Mid-term result of acetabular reconstruction using a Kerboull-type acetabular reinforcement device with hydroxyapatite impaction

The aim of this study is to investigate the mid-term results of 29 hips in 26 patients who underwent acetabular reconstruction using a Kerboull-type acetabular reinforcement device and impaction with hydroxyapatite (HA) granules. The acetabular bone defects were AAOS type II for six hips and type III for 23 hips. The mean Merle d’Aubigné clinical scores were significantly improved after operation. Six hips developed implant migration and breakage, and five of six hips were revised after an average of 5.5 (range 2.0–8.8) years. All hips with thickness of the grafted HA less than 10 mm were stable. As the HA became thicker, the failure rate were significantly increased. The Kaplan–Meier survival rates at 10 years were 73.2%, with 100% and 67.0% for AAOS type II and III defect respectively as the end point was failure condition. Reconstruction using a Kerboull-type acetabular reinforcement device and impaction with HA granules was an alternative method in the absence of adequate allografts.

Acetabular impaction grafting with mesh for acetabular bone defects: a systematic review

Introduction: In conjunction with impaction bone grafting (IBG), metal meshes have been proposed to minimise defects of the medial and superolateral walls in order to convert combined complex uncontained segmental defects into contained cavitary defects to facilitate IBG. Methods: The US National Library of Medicine (PubMed/MEDLINE), EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were queried for publications from January 1980 to March 2019 utilising keywords pertinent to total hip arthroplasty (THA), acetabular impaction bone grafting, clinical or functional outcomes, revision THA, or postoperative complications. Results: 7 articles were found to be suitable for inclusion in the present study. The mean modified Coleman methodology score for methodological deficiencies of the studies was 45.3 (range 38–59). Severe acetabular bone loss was present in 56% of cases having moderate bone loss in 18%, and mild in 26%. The all-cause reoperation rate was 7.4%, while the all-cause revision rate of the acetabular component was 6.2%. Conclusions: IBG with mesh is effective for selected patients with acetabular bone defects. Most patients with moderate bone loss as well as selected patients with large superolateral defects can be successfully treated with IBG combined with mesh. There is limited data to show that IBG with mesh might be associated with decreased survival rates in patients with severe lateral defects (Paprosky IIIA) combined with ischial or medial wall osteolysis who require combined medial and lateral meshes. In addition, patients with severe superomedial migration of the cup (Paprosky IIIB) should not be treated with IBG and mesh.