Literature DB >> 22090355

Tantalum augments for Paprosky IIIA defects remain stable at midterm followup.

Daniel J Del Gaizo1, Vamsi Kancherla, Scott M Sporer, Wayne G Paprosky.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Initial reports with short-term followup of porous tantalum acetabular components and augments for Paprosky IIIA acetabular defects demonstrate high hip scores, low rates of aseptic loosening, and low rates of complications. However, longer-term followup with a larger cohort is needed to determine the durability of these reconstructions. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We therefore determined the functional scores, rates of aseptic loosening, and complications in patients with Paprosky IIIA acetabular defects treated with porous tantalum acetabular components and augments.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 37 acetabular revisions in 36 patients (one patient with bilateral revisions) treated with a porous tantalum acetabular component and augment. All patients had defects classified as Type IIIa using the system of Paprosky et al. Harris hip scores were obtained and radiographic examination was performed before surgery and through most recent followup. The minimum followup was 26 months (mean, 60 months; range, 26-106 months).
RESULTS: One patient developed aseptic loosening of the acetabular reconstruction requiring revision; seven other patients required further surgery for periprosthetic femoral fracture (two), acute infection (three), and recurrent dislocation (two). Thirty-five of 37 hips had no or occasional pain at final followup. Mean Harris hip scores improved from 33.0 preoperatively (range, 12.6-58.7) to 81.5 postoperatively (range, 27.0-99.8).
CONCLUSIONS: Although the complication rate requiring further surgery was considerable, most patients with these reconstructions had pain relief and reasonable function with low rates of loosening at midterm followup. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22090355      PMCID: PMC3254742          DOI: 10.1007/s11999-011-2170-x

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


  22 in total

Review 1.  Dealing with the deficient acetabulum in revision hip arthroplasty: the importance of implant migration and use of the jumbo cup.

Authors:  R H Emerson; W C Head
Journal:  Semin Arthroplasty       Date:  1993-01

2.  Acetabular defect classification: a detailed radiographic approach.

Authors:  M S Bradford; W G Paprosky
Journal:  Semin Arthroplasty       Date:  1995-04

3.  Modular porous metal augments for treatment of severe acetabular bone loss during revision hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Alexandre Nehme; David G Lewallen; Arlen D Hanssen
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  Revision of the acetabular component of a total hip arthroplasty with a massive structural allograft. Study with a minimum five-year follow-up.

Authors:  D Garbuz; E Morsi; A E Gross
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1996-05       Impact factor: 5.284

5.  Revision total hip arthroplasty with shelf bulk allografts. A long-term follow-up study.

Authors:  E Morsi; D Garbuz; A E Gross
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  1996-01       Impact factor: 4.757

6.  Early migration of acetabular components revised with cement. A roentgen stereophotogrammetric study.

Authors:  H Franzén; B Mjöberg; R Onnerfält
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1993-02       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  Acetabular defect classification and surgical reconstruction in revision arthroplasty. A 6-year follow-up evaluation.

Authors:  W G Paprosky; P G Perona; J M Lawrence
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  1994-02       Impact factor: 4.757

8.  The use of structural distal femoral allografts for acetabular reconstruction. Average ten-year follow-up.

Authors:  Scott M Sporer; Michael O'Rourke; Paul Chong; Wayne G Paprosky
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 5.284

9.  Revision hip arthroplasty: infection is the most common cause of failure.

Authors:  S Mehdi Jafari; Catelyn Coyle; S M Javad Mortazavi; Peter F Sharkey; Javad Parvizi
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  The management of severe acetabular bone defects in revision hip arthroplasty using modular porous metal components.

Authors:  K Lingaraj; Y H Teo; N Bergman
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2009-12
View more
  35 in total

1.  Uncemented Porous Tantalum Acetabular Components: Early Follow-Up and Failures in 599 Revision Total Hip Arthroplasties.

Authors:  William J Long; Nicolas O Noiseux; Tad M Mabry; Arlen D Hanssen; David G Lewallen
Journal:  Iowa Orthop J       Date:  2015

2.  [Treatment of acetabular defects with the trabecular metal revision system].

Authors:  G I Wassilew; V Janz; C Perka; M Müller
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 1.087

Review 3.  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

4.  Acetabular Defect Reconstruction with Trabecular Metal Augments: Study with Minimum One-year Follow-up.

Authors:  Chirayu Dwivedi; Sandeep Gokhale; Hyun Gon Khim; Jeon Keon Oh; Won Yong Shon
Journal:  Hip Pelvis       Date:  2017-09-06

5.  Bacterial adherence to different components of total hip prosthesis in patients with prosthetic joint infection.

Authors:  Richard Lass; Alexander Giurea; Bernd Kubista; Alexander M Hirschl; Wolfgang Graninger; Elisabeth Presterl; Reinhard Windhager; Johannes Holinka
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2014-05-10       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 6.  Clinical evaluation and surgical options in acetabular reconstruction: A literature review.

Authors:  Asim Qamar Ahmad; Ran Schwarzkopf
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2015-11-02

7.  Do revision total hip augments provide appropriate modularity?

Authors:  Matthew G Teeter; Douglas D R Naudie; James L Howard; Richard W McCalden; Steven J MacDonald
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 2.089

8.  Reconstruction of Paprosky type IIIB acetabular bone defects using a cup-on-cup technique: A surgical technique and case series.

Authors:  Yin-Qiao Du; Yu-Ping Liu; Jing-Yang Sun; Ming Ni; Yong-Gang Zhou
Journal:  World J Clin Cases       Date:  2020-04-06       Impact factor: 1.337

9.  Tantalum Components in Difficult Acetabular Revisions Have Good Survival at 5 to 10 Years: Longer Term Followup of a Previous Report.

Authors:  Paul F Lachiewicz; Jane Anne O'Dell
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  Smoking may be a harbinger of early failure with ultraporous metal acetabular reconstruction.

Authors:  Adolph V Lombardi; Keith R Berend; Joanne B Adams; Ryan C Jefferson; Michael A Sneller
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 4.176

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.