Literature DB >> 18685826

[Acetabular reinforcement rings in revision total hip arthroplasty: midterm results in 298 cases].

U J Schlegel1, R G Bitsch, M Pritsch, P R Aldinger, H Mau, S J Breusch.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Acetabular revision in total hip arthroplasty (THA), especially for loose or migrated cup components with collateral bone loss, remains a great surgical challenge. The aim should always be a functionally favorable reconstruction of the rotation center with sufficient load capacity of the acetabulum. Commonly used implants in Europe are the Mueller ring, the Ganz ring, and the Burch-Schneider cage. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We report our results of 298 patients (298 hips) with a median follow-up period of 4 (range 0-17) years in a retrospective series.
RESULTS: Follow-up data were available in 224 cases (75%). A radiographic examination was performed in 176 (59%) patients. Another 54 patients (18%) had died in the follow-up period, while another three patients (1%) were lost to follow-up. Eighteen patients (16%) underwent re-revision, in nine cases for aseptic loosening and in the remaining nine cases for infection. In seven additional cases (2%), radiological and clinical failure was found during follow-up. The overall survival rate was 94% at 5 years and 89% at 8 years.
CONCLUSION: Revision THA using acetabular reinforcement rings results in acceptable midterm results. However, septic complications and lysis of the bone graft with consecutive failure of the reinforcement ring remain problematic.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18685826     DOI: 10.1007/s00132-008-1314-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Orthopade        ISSN: 0085-4530            Impact factor:   1.087


  55 in total

1.  The use of reinforcement rings to reconstruct deficient acetabula.

Authors:  J Rosson; J Schatzker
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1992-09

2.  Bulk versus morselized bone graft in acetabular revision total hip replacement.

Authors:  W H Harris
Journal:  Semin Arthroplasty       Date:  1993-04

3.  Mueller reinforcement rings in acetabular revision: outcome in 164 hips followed for 2-17 years.

Authors:  Ulf J Schlegel; Rudi G Bitsch; Maria Pritsch; Martin Clauss; Hans Mau; Steffen J Breusch
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 3.717

4.  [Hooked roof cup in revision of difficult loose hip prosthesis cups. Results after a minimum of 10 years].

Authors:  K A Siebenrock; M Trochsler; H Sadri; R Ganz
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 1.087

5.  High failure rate of bulk femoral head allografts in total hip acetabular reconstructions at 10 years.

Authors:  L M Kwong; M Jasty; W H Harris
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  1993-08       Impact factor: 4.757

6.  Acetabular revision using a trabecular metal acetabular component for severe acetabular bone loss associated with a pelvic discontinuity.

Authors:  Scott M Sporer; Wayne G Paprosky
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 4.757

7.  Loss to follow-up matters.

Authors:  D W Murray; A R Britton; C J Bulstrode
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1997-03

8.  Acetabular reconstruction with the Burch-Schneider ring: an EBRA analysis of 40 cup revisions.

Authors:  Thomas Ilchmann; Jan Philipp Gelzer; Eugen Winter; Kuno Weise
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 3.717

9.  Revision arthroplasty using an anti-protrusio cage for massive acetabular bone deficiency.

Authors:  D J Berry; M E Müller
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1992-09

10.  Classification and management of acetabular abnormalities in total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  J A D'Antonio; W N Capello; L S Borden; W L Bargar; B F Bierbaum; W G Boettcher; M E Steinberg; S D Stulberg; J H Wedge
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1989-06       Impact factor: 4.176

View more
  10 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

Review 2.  [Comparison of different cup revision systems].

Authors:  K Trieb
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 1.087

3.  [Treatment of acetabular bone defects in revision hip arthroplasty using the Revisio-System].

Authors:  M Hoberg; B M Holzapfel; A F Steinert; F Kratzer; M Walcher; M Rudert
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 1.087

4.  [Standardized reconstruction of acetabular bone defects using the cranial socket system].

Authors:  Maximilian Rudert; Boris Michael Holzapfel; Florian Kratzer; Reiner Gradinger
Journal:  Oper Orthop Traumatol       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 1.154

5.  Functional and Emotional Results Differ After Aseptic vs Septic Revision Hip Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Friedrich Boettner; Michael B Cross; Denis Nam; Tobias Kluthe; Miriam Schulte; Christian Goetze
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2011-06-11

6.  The Burch-Schneider antiprotrusio cage: medium follow-up results.

Authors:  J Lamo-Espinosa; J Duart Clemente; P Díaz-Rada; J Pons-Villanueva; J R Valentí-Nín
Journal:  Musculoskelet Surg       Date:  2012-12-20

7.  The Ganz acetabular reinforcement ring shows excellent long-term results when used as a primary implant: a retrospective analysis of two hundred and forty primary total hip arthroplasties with a minimum follow-up of twenty years.

Authors:  Marc C Attinger; Pascal C Haefeli; Henrik C Bäcker; Remy Flueckiger; Peter M Ballmer; Klaus A Siebenrock; Frank M Klenke
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2019-01-20       Impact factor: 3.075

8.  10-Year Survival of Acetabular Reinforcement Rings/Cages for Complex Hip Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Alexander Ewers; Christian Spross; Lukas Ebneter; Fabrice Külling; Karlmeinrad Giesinger; Vilijam Zdravkovic; Johannes Erhardt
Journal:  Open Orthop J       Date:  2015-05-15

9.  Dislocation rates with combinations of anti-protrusio cages and dual mobility cups in revision cases: Are we safe?

Authors:  Tom Schmidt-Braekling; Dorothee Sieber; Georg Gosheger; Jan C Theil; Burkhard Moellenbeck; Dimosthenis Andreou; Ralf Dieckmann
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-02-07       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Acetabular reconstruction with the Burch-Schneider antiprotrusio cage and bulk allografts: minimum 10-year follow-up results.

Authors:  Dario Regis; Andrea Sandri; Ingrid Bonetti
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2014-05-21       Impact factor: 3.411

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.