BACKGROUND: Large bone loss and frequently irradiated existing bone make reconstructing metastatic and other nonprimary periacetabular tumors challenging. Although existing methods are initially successful, they may fail with time. Given the low failure rates of porous tantalum acetabular implants in other conditions with large bone loss or irradiated bone, we developed a technique to use these implants in these neoplastic cases where others might fail. DESCRIPTION OF TECHNIQUE: After local tumor curettage, a large uncemented tantalum shell (sometimes with tantalum augments) was fixed to remaining bone using numerous screws. When substantial medial bone loss was present, an antiprotrusio cage was placed over the top of the cup and secured to remaining ilium and ischium. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 20 patients who underwent THAs for neoplastic bone destruction with the described technique. Their mean age was 60 years (range, 22-80 years). We recorded pain and ambulatory status, pain medication use, and Harris hip scores. We assessed for progressive radiolucent lines and component migration on followup radiographs. Eleven of the 20 patients died at a mean of 17 months after surgery. The minimum followup for surviving patients was 26 months (mean, 56 months; range, 26-85 months). RESULTS: Harris hip scores improved from a mean 32 preoperatively to a mean 74 postoperatively. We observed no cases of progressive radiolucent lines or component migration. Complications included one perioperative death, two superficial infections, one deep vein thrombosis, and one dislocation. CONCLUSION: Our initial experience has made tantalum reconstruction our preferred method for dealing with major periacetabular neoplastic bone loss. Additional studies comparing this technique with alternatives are required. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
BACKGROUND: Large bone loss and frequently irradiated existing bone make reconstructing metastatic and other nonprimary periacetabular tumors challenging. Although existing methods are initially successful, they may fail with time. Given the low failure rates of porous tantalum acetabular implants in other conditions with large bone loss or irradiated bone, we developed a technique to use these implants in these neoplastic cases where others might fail. DESCRIPTION OF TECHNIQUE: After local tumor curettage, a large uncemented tantalum shell (sometimes with tantalum augments) was fixed to remaining bone using numerous screws. When substantial medial bone loss was present, an antiprotrusio cage was placed over the top of the cup and secured to remaining ilium and ischium. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 20 patients who underwent THAs for neoplastic bone destruction with the described technique. Their mean age was 60 years (range, 22-80 years). We recorded pain and ambulatory status, pain medication use, and Harris hip scores. We assessed for progressive radiolucent lines and component migration on followup radiographs. Eleven of the 20 patients died at a mean of 17 months after surgery. The minimum followup for surviving patients was 26 months (mean, 56 months; range, 26-85 months). RESULTS: Harris hip scores improved from a mean 32 preoperatively to a mean 74 postoperatively. We observed no cases of progressive radiolucent lines or component migration. Complications included one perioperative death, two superficial infections, one deep vein thrombosis, and one dislocation. CONCLUSION: Our initial experience has made tantalum reconstruction our preferred method for dealing with major periacetabular neoplastic bone loss. Additional studies comparing this technique with alternatives are required. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Authors: Brett Russell Levine; Scott Sporer; Robert A Poggie; Craig J Della Valle; Joshua J Jacobs Journal: Biomaterials Date: 2006-06-05 Impact factor: 12.479
Authors: Saminathan S Nathan; John H Healey; Danilo Mellano; Bang Hoang; Isobel Lewis; Carol D Morris; Edward A Athanasian; Patrick J Boland Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-09-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Michaela M Schneiderbauer; Marius von Knoch; Cathy D Schleck; William S Harmsen; Franklin H Sim; Sean P Scully Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 5.284
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
Authors: Alexander Siegmeth; Clive P Duncan; Bassam A Masri; Winston Y Kim; Donald S Garbuz Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2008-10-16 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Vasileios I Sakellariou; Andreas F Mavrogenis; Olga Savvidou; Franklin H Sim; Panayiotis J Papagelopoulos Journal: Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol Date: 2014-10-19
Authors: Peter K Sculco; Timothy Wright; Michael-Alexander Malahias; Alexander Gu; Mathias Bostrom; Fares Haddad; Seth Jerabek; Michael Bolognesi; Thomas Fehring; Alejandro Gonzalez DellaValle; William Jiranek; William Walter; Wayne Paprosky; Donald Garbuz; Thomas Sculco Journal: HSS J Date: 2021-09-28
Authors: Matthew T Houdek; Peter C Ferguson; Matthew P Abdel; Anthony M Griffin; Mario Hevesi; Kevin I Perry; Peter S Rose; Jay S Wunder; David G Lewallen Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2020-07-15 Impact factor: 6.558