Literature DB >> 10682728

Acetabular revision with use of a bilobed component inserted without cement in patients who have acetabular bone-stock deficiency.

W M Chen1, C A Engh, R H Hopper, J P McAuley, C A Engh.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Massive deficiency of acetabular bone stock is a challenging problem in the increasing number of patients who need a revision of a failed hip arthroplasty. The bilobed cup has been presented as one alternative reconstruction technique for hips with extensive acetabular bone loss. The purpose of this study was to assess the results with use of a bilobed acetabular component inserted without cement for revision reconstruction in hips with acetabular bone deficiency in order to clarify the indications for its use and to identify the factors that influence the clinical and radiographic outcome.
METHODS: Forty-one hips in thirty-eight patients had an acetabular revision with a bilobed acetabular component inserted without cement between December 1991 and December 1995. These hips were a subset of the 414 hips treated with an acetabular revision during the same period of time. One patient was lost to follow-up, and one died during the study period. Two patients who could not return for radiographic evaluation completed questionnaires. The remaining thirty-four patients (thirty-seven hips) were evaluated radiographically and clinically and were followed for an average of forty-one months (range, twenty-four to sixty-six months).
RESULTS: Radiographic analysis demonstrated an improvement in the average vertical displacement of the hip center. At the time of the latest follow-up examination, 76 percent (twenty-eight) of the thirty-seven cups were stable, 8 percent (three) were probably unstable with a change in the screw position but no definite migration of the cup, and 16 percent (six) were unstable. Eight of the nine loose or probably loose components were in patients who had more than two centimeters of superior migration of the component and disruption of Kohler's line on preoperative radiographs. Additionally, implants were more likely to become unstable (demonstrating more than 4 degrees of change in the abduction angle or more than four millimeters of radiographic migration) when the inferior aspect of the component did not extend to or distal to the interteardrop line, which indicated that the component was undersized.
CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of our early rate of probable or definite loosening of 24 percent (nine of thirty-seven cups) and the technical difficulties involved, we do not recommend the routine use of this component. We believe that this device is indicated when a patient has an oblong-shaped acetabular defect and the surgeon wants to correct an elevated hip center. However, the medial wall of the acetabulum (Kohler's line) should be intact if the failed component has migrated more than two centimeters. An alternative reconstruction technique, such as use of a structural allograft with or without an acetabular cage, is also an option in this situation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10682728     DOI: 10.2106/00004623-200002000-00005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am        ISSN: 0021-9355            Impact factor:   5.284


  26 in total

1.  Large acetabular defects can be managed with cementless revision components.

Authors:  E Scott Paxton; James A Keeney; William J Maloney; John C Clohisy
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Acetabular revisions using a cementless oblong cup: five to ten year results.

Authors:  R Civinini; A Capone; C Carulli; M Villano; M I Gusso
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2007-01-13       Impact factor: 3.075

3.  Acetabular cage survival and analysis of factors related to failure.

Authors:  Jonathan N Sembrano; Edward Y Cheng
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2008-02-26       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  Type III acetabular defect revision with bilobed components: five-year results.

Authors:  Joseph T Moskal; Michael E Higgins; Joseph Shen
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2008-02-10       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 5.  Systematic review on outcomes of acetabular revisions with highly-porous metals.

Authors:  Samik Banerjee; Kimona Issa; Bhaveen H Kapadia; Robert Pivec; Harpal S Khanuja; Michael A Mont
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2013-11-01       Impact factor: 3.075

6.  [Reconstruction of the acetabulum with structured bone graft in press-fit technique].

Authors:  Andreas Halder; Alexander Beier; Wolfram Neumann
Journal:  Oper Orthop Traumatol       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 1.154

Review 7.  Cementless acetabular revision: past, present, and future. Revision total hip arthroplasty: the acetabular side using cementless implants.

Authors:  Luis Pulido; Sridhar R Rachala; Miguel E Cabanela
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2011-01-14       Impact factor: 3.075

8.  Continued good results with modular trabecular metal augments for acetabular defects in hip arthroplasty at 7 to 11 years.

Authors:  Michael R Whitehouse; Bassam A Masri; Clive P Duncan; Donald S Garbuz
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  Mid-term results of revision total hip arthroplasty using the oval-shaped uncemented Trč-Cingr cup.

Authors:  Eduard Šťastný; Tomáš Trč; Milan Handl; Petr Kos; Jakub Kautzner; Theodoros Philippou; Jiří Lisý
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2014-01-16       Impact factor: 3.075

10.  [Acetabular revision surgery with the oblong revision cup : clinical and radiological results of 217 cases].

Authors:  S Fickert; S Pfeiffer; A Walter; K P Günther; W-C Witzleb
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 1.087

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.