Literature DB >> 20577842

The fate of grafting acetabular defects during revision total hip arthroplasty.

Nathan A Mall1, Ryan M Nunley, Kirk E Smith, William J Maloney, John C Clohisy, Robert L Barrack.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Acetabular defects are frequently grafted during revision THA. Previous studies using plain radiographs report high rates of graft incorporation. However, given plain radiographs underestimate osteolysis, it is unclear whether plain radiographs adequately reflect graft fill or incorporation. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We determined if (1) graft fill; or (2) incorporation (measured as graft-bone contact) differed with complete revision and grafting compared to liner exchange and grafting; (3) defect fill and incorporation could be assessed on plain radiographs; and (4) the cost of bone grafting differed with these two procedures.
METHODS: We identified 40 patients who underwent revision THA for aseptic loosening or polyethylene wear and osteolysis, either with retention of a well-fixed cup or complete acetabular revision in which bone graft was used. Lesion size, percent fill, and graft healing was quantified from CT scans. A limited cost analysis was performed using the current hospital costs for implants, bone grafts, and bone graft substitutes. The minimum followup was 1 year (mean, 4.8 years; range, 1-11 years).
RESULTS: The average defect fill was 30% (range, 0%-81%). The average percent of healing to host bone was 24% (range, 0-66%). Complete revisions had a higher percent defect fill compared to head/liner changes (47% versus 17%) as well as a higher degree of graft healing to host bone compared to head/liner changes (36% versus 14%). High resolution CT demonstrated lower percentages of defect fill and graft healing than previous reports based on plain radiographs. Bone grafting costs exceeded implant costs in the head/liner exchange group; however, the overall cost was higher in the complete revision group.
CONCLUSIONS: Higher degrees of defect fill and healing were seen with complete revisions compared to head/liner exchanges. Compared to CT scans, plain radiograph assessment tended to overestimate defect fill and healing.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20577842      PMCID: PMC2974866          DOI: 10.1007/s11999-010-1427-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.176


  36 in total

1.  Reasons for revision hip surgery: a retrospective review.

Authors:  John C Clohisy; George Calvert; Frank Tull; Douglas McDonald; William J Maloney
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Correlation of computed tomography with histology in the assessment of periprosthetic defect healing.

Authors:  Stephen D Cook; Laura P Patron; Samantha L Salkeld; Kirk E Smith; Bruce Whiting; Robert L Barrack
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  The fate of pelvic osteolysis after reoperation. No recurrence with lesional treatment.

Authors:  T P Schmalzried; V A Fowble; H C Amstutz
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1998-05       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation.

Authors:  W H Harris
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1969-06       Impact factor: 5.284

5.  Aggressive granulomatous lesions in cementless total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  S Santavirta; V Hoikka; A Eskola; Y T Konttinen; T Paavilainen; K Tallroth
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1990-11

Review 6.  The microenvironment around total hip replacement prostheses.

Authors:  Yrjö T Konttinen; Desheng Zhao; Arzu Beklen; Guofeng Ma; Michiaki Takagi; Marjo Kivelä-Rajamäki; Nureddin Ashammakhi; Seppo Santavirta
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  Periprosthetic bone loss in total hip arthroplasty. Polyethylene wear debris and the concept of the effective joint space.

Authors:  T P Schmalzried; M Jasty; W H Harris
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1992-07       Impact factor: 5.284

8.  Treatment of pelvic osteolysis associated with a stable acetabular component inserted without cement as part of a total hip replacement.

Authors:  W J Maloney; P Herzwurm; W Paprosky; H E Rubash; C A Engh
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1997-11       Impact factor: 5.284

9.  The incorporation of morselized bone grafts in cementless acetabular revisions.

Authors:  Gracia Etienne; Hari P Bezwada; David S Hungerford; Michael A Mont
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  CT for determining the results of treatment of fractures of the wrist.

Authors:  S F Quinn; W Murray; T Watkins; J Kloss
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1987-07       Impact factor: 3.959

View more
  7 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.  The augment-and-modular-cage revision system for reconstruction of severe acetabular defects-two-year clinical and radiographic results.

Authors:  Philip P Roessler; Max Jaenisch; Manuel Kuhlmann; Miriam Wacker; P Johannes Wagenhäuser; Sascha Gravius; Dieter C Wirtz
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2018-12-11       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 3.  [Allogeneic bone transplantation in hip revision surgery : Indications and potential for reconstruction].

Authors:  G A Ahmed; B Ishaque; M Rickert; C Fölsch
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2018-01       Impact factor: 1.087

4.  Fate of bone grafting for acetabular defects in total hip replacement.

Authors:  Anil Thomas Oommen; Vignesh Prasad Krishnamoorthy; Pradeep Mathew Poonnoose; Ravi Jacob Korula
Journal:  Indian J Orthop       Date:  2015 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 1.251

5.  The use of morselized allografts without impaction and cemented cage support in acetabular revision surgery: a 4- to 9-year follow-up.

Authors:  Huifeng Ding; Yuanqing Mao; Bin Yu; Zhenan Zhu; Huiwu Li; Baoqing Yu; Jianming Huang
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2015-05-23       Impact factor: 2.359

6.  Clinical evaluation following the use of mineralized collagen graft for bone defects in revision total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Cheng Huang; Liwu Qin; Wei Yan; Xisheng Weng; Xiangjie Huang
Journal:  Regen Biomater       Date:  2015-11-11

7.  Is the size of the acetabular bone lesion a predictive factor for failure in revisions of total hip arthroplasty using an impacted allograft?

Authors:  Rodrigo Pereira Guimarães; Alexandre Maris Yonamine; Carlos Eduardo Nunes Faria; Marco Rudelli
Journal:  Rev Bras Ortop       Date:  2016-06-27
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.