PURPOSE: This study evaluates acetabular cup position in the setting of revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) with severe acetabular bone defects. METHODS: With a definition of safe zone of abduction (30-50°) and anteversion (5-25°), acetabular cup position was measured by a digital image analysis program for 34 patients with Paprosky type III acetabular bone defects. RESULTS: There were 24 cups (71%) for abduction and 26 cups (76%) for anteversion located in the safe zone. Nineteen cups (56%) were within the safe zone for both abduction and anteversion. There was no dislocation, however one cup out of the safe zone resulted in early cup failure due to aseptic loosening. CONCLUSIONS: The acetabular cup positioning in patients with Paprosky type III defects was 'optimal' in half of the cases. The prevalence of optimal acetabular cup position was similar to those reported in primary THA, suggesting that the presence of a large acetabular bone defect may not be a significant risk factor for suboptimal acetabular cup positioning in the setting of revision THA.
PURPOSE: This study evaluates acetabular cup position in the setting of revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) with severe acetabular bone defects. METHODS: With a definition of safe zone of abduction (30-50°) and anteversion (5-25°), acetabular cup position was measured by a digital image analysis program for 34 patients with Paprosky type III acetabular bone defects. RESULTS: There were 24 cups (71%) for abduction and 26 cups (76%) for anteversion located in the safe zone. Nineteen cups (56%) were within the safe zone for both abduction and anteversion. There was no dislocation, however one cup out of the safe zone resulted in early cup failure due to aseptic loosening. CONCLUSIONS: The acetabular cup positioning in patients with Paprosky type III defects was 'optimal' in half of the cases. The prevalence of optimal acetabular cup position was similar to those reported in primary THA, suggesting that the presence of a large acetabular bone defect may not be a significant risk factor for suboptimal acetabular cup positioning in the setting of revision THA.
Authors: Rolf G A Haaker; Kai Tiedjen; Andreas Ottersbach; Frank Rubenthaler; Marthin Stockheim; James B Stiehl Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 4.757
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
Authors: Markus Weber; Lena Witzmann; Jan Wieding; Joachim Grifka; Tobias Renkawitz; Benjamin Craiovan Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2018-10-10 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Philippe Hernigou; Jacques Pariat; Steffen Queinnec; Yasuhiro Homma; Charles Henri Flouzat Lachaniette; Nathalie Chevallier; Helene Rouard Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2014-02-09 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Jan Schmolders; Max J Friedrich; Robert D Michel; Thomas M Randau; Matthias D Wimmer; Andreas C Strauss; Hendrik Kohlhof; Dieter C Wirtz; Sascha Gravius Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2014-10-04 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Philippe Hernigou; Arnaud Dubory; François Roubineau; Yasuhiro Homma; Charles Henri Flouzat-Lachaniette; Nathalie Chevallier; Helene Rouard Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2016-08-24 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Jean Louis Prudhon; François Steffann; André Ferreira; Régis Verdier; Thierry Aslanian; Jacques Caton Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2014-07-31 Impact factor: 3.075