BACKGROUND: Pelvic discontinuity is an increasingly common complication of THA. Treatments of this complex situation are varied, including cup-cage constructs, acetabular allografts with plating, pelvic distraction technique, and custom triflange acetabular components. It is unclear whether any of these offer substantial advantages. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We therefore determined (1) revision and overall survival rates, (2) discontinuity healing rate, and (3) Harris hip score (HHS) after treatment of pelvic discontinuity with a custom triflange acetabular component and (4) the cost of this reconstructive operation compared to other constructs. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 57 patients with pelvic discontinuity treated with revision THA using a custom triflange acetabular component. We reviewed operative reports, radiographs, and clinical data for clinical and radiographic results. We also performed a cost comparison with utilization of other techniques. Minimum followup was 24 months (average, 65 months; range, 24-215 months). RESULTS: Fifty-six of 57 (98%) were free of revision for aseptic loosening at latest followup. Fifty-four (95%) were free of revision of the triflange component for any reason. Thirty-seven (65%) were free of revision for any reason. Twenty-eight (49%) were free of revision for any reason and free of any component migration and had a healed discontinuity. Forty-six (81%) had a stable triflange component with a healed pelvic discontinuity. Average HHS was 74.8. The costs of the custom triflange implants and a Trabecular Metal cup-cage construct were equivalent: $12,500 and $11,250, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this group of patients with osteolytic pelvic discontinuity, triflange implants provided predictable mid-term fixation at a cost equivalent to other treatment methods. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
BACKGROUND: Pelvic discontinuity is an increasingly common complication of THA. Treatments of this complex situation are varied, including cup-cage constructs, acetabular allografts with plating, pelvic distraction technique, and custom triflange acetabular components. It is unclear whether any of these offer substantial advantages. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We therefore determined (1) revision and overall survival rates, (2) discontinuity healing rate, and (3) Harris hip score (HHS) after treatment of pelvic discontinuity with a custom triflange acetabular component and (4) the cost of this reconstructive operation compared to other constructs. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 57 patients with pelvic discontinuity treated with revision THA using a custom triflange acetabular component. We reviewed operative reports, radiographs, and clinical data for clinical and radiographic results. We also performed a cost comparison with utilization of other techniques. Minimum followup was 24 months (average, 65 months; range, 24-215 months). RESULTS: Fifty-six of 57 (98%) were free of revision for aseptic loosening at latest followup. Fifty-four (95%) were free of revision of the triflange component for any reason. Thirty-seven (65%) were free of revision for any reason. Twenty-eight (49%) were free of revision for any reason and free of any component migration and had a healed discontinuity. Forty-six (81%) had a stable triflange component with a healed pelvic discontinuity. Average HHS was 74.8. The costs of the custom triflange implants and a Trabecular Metal cup-cage construct were equivalent: $12,500 and $11,250, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this group of patients with osteolytic pelvic discontinuity, triflange implants provided predictable mid-term fixation at a cost equivalent to other treatment methods. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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: Max J Friedrich; Jan Schmolders; Robert D Michel; Thomas M Randau; Matthias D Wimmer; Hendrik Kohlhof; Dieter C Wirtz; Sascha Gravius Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2014-07-16 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Carl C Berasi; Keith R Berend; Joanne B Adams; Erin L Ruh; Adolph V Lombardi Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 4.176