Literature DB >> 24589785

Reconstruction of massive uncontained acetabular defects using allograft with cage or ring reinforcement: an assessment of the graft's ability to restore bone stock and its impact on the outcome of re-revision.

M Abolghasemian1, M Sadeghi Naini, S Tangsataporn, P Lee, D Backstein, O Safir, P Kuzyk, A E Gross.   

Abstract

We retrospectively reviewed 44 consecutive patients (50 hips) who underwent acetabular re-revision after a failed previous revision that had been performed using structural or morcellised allograft bone, with a cage or ring for uncontained defects. Of the 50 previous revisions, 41 cages and nine rings were used with allografts for 14 minor-column and 36 major-column defects. We routinely assessed the size of the acetabular bone defect at the time of revision and re-revision surgery. This allowed us to assess whether host bone stock was restored. We also assessed the outcome of re-revision surgery in these circumstances by means of radiological characteristics, rates of failure and modes of failure. We subsequently investigated the factors that may affect the potential for the restoration of bone stock and the durability of the re-revision reconstruction using multivariate analysis. At the time of re-revision, there were ten host acetabula with no significant defects, 14 with contained defects, nine with minor-column, seven with major-column defects and ten with pelvic discontinuity. When bone defects at re-revision were compared with those at the previous revision, there was restoration of bone stock in 31 hips, deterioration of bone stock in nine and remained unchanged in ten. This was a significant improvement (p < 0.001). Morselised allografting at the index revision was not associated with the restoration of bone stock. In 17 hips (34%), re-revision was possible using a simple acetabular component without allograft, augments, rings or cages. There were 47 patients with a mean follow-up of 70 months (6 to 146) available for survival analysis. Within this group, the successful cases had a minimum follow-up of two years after re-revision. There were 22 clinical or radiological failures (46.7%), 18 of which were due to aseptic loosening. The five and ten year Kaplan-Meier survival rate was 75% (95% CI, 60 to 86) and 56% (95% CI, 40 to 70) respectively with aseptic loosening as the endpoint. The rate of aseptic loosening was higher for hips with pelvic discontinuity (p = 0.049) and less when the allograft had been in place for longer periods (p = 0.040). The use of a cage or ring over structural allograft bone for massive uncontained defects in acetabular revision can restore host bone stock and facilitate subsequent re-revision surgery to a certain extent.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Acetabulum; Allograft; Bone stock; Cage; Hip revision; Reinforcement ring

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24589785     DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.96B3.32850

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Bone Joint J        ISSN: 2049-4394            Impact factor:   5.082


  10 in total

Review 1.  Treatment options for chronic pelvic discontinuity.

Authors:  Mark D Hasenauer; Wayne G Paprosky; Neil P Sheth
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2017-09-18

2.  Tritanium acetabular wedge augments: short-term results.

Authors:  Camilo Restrepo; Snir Heller; Antonia F Chen
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2016-06

3.  Prospective cohort study of six hundred and sixty four revisions of loose failed acetabular implants.

Authors:  N Zagorodniy; I Nikolaev; V Nuzhdin; S Kagramanov
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2014-06-19       Impact factor: 3.075

4.  Acetabular reconstruction with a reinforcement device and bone grafting in revision arthroplasty-a mean five years of follow-up.

Authors:  Ancuța Zazgyva; Sándor-György Zuh; Ciprian Oliviu Roman; István Gergely; Tudor Sorin Pop
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2015-11-07       Impact factor: 3.075

5.  Preliminary biomechanical study of different acetabular reinforcement devices for acetabular reconstruction.

Authors:  Ching-Lung Tai; Po-Yi Lee; Pang-Hsing Hsieh
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-03-23       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Nanoparticle-modified chitosan-agarose-gelatin scaffold for sustained release of SDF-1 and BMP-2.

Authors:  Bin Wang; Yuanwei Guo; Xiaofeng Chen; Chao Zeng; Qikang Hu; Wei Yin; Wei Li; Hui Xie; Bingyu Zhang; Xingchun Huang; Fenglei Yu
Journal:  Int J Nanomedicine       Date:  2018-11-12

7.  Acetabular reconstruction for primary and revision total hip arthroplasty using Kerboull-type acetabular reinforcement devices-case-control study with factors related to poor outcomes of surgery.

Authors:  Yoshinobu Masumoto; Shigeo Fukunishi; Tomokazu Fukui; Yu Takeda; Shoji Nishio; Yuki Fujihara; Shohei Okahisa; Taishi Okada; Shinichi Yoshiya
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2019-07       Impact factor: 1.817

8.  The mid-long term results of reconstructional cage and morselized allografts combined application for the Paprosky type III acetabular bone defects in revision hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Qiang Xiao; Haoyang Wang; Kai Zhou; Duan Wang; Tingxian Ling; Fuxing Pei; Zongke Zhou
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2019-11-07       Impact factor: 2.362

9.  Acetabular Revision Surgery with Tantalum Trabecular Metal Acetabular Cup for Failed Acetabular Cage Reconstruction with Bone Allografts: A Retrospective Study with Mid- to Long-Term Follow-Up.

Authors:  Chen-Heng Hsu; Chih-Chien Hu; Chih-Hsiang Chang; Yu-Han Chang; Hsin-Nung Shih; Chun-Chieh Chen
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-06-15       Impact factor: 4.964

10.  Custom-made 3D-printed cup-cage implants for complex acetabular revisions: evaluation of pre-planned versus achieved positioning and 1-year migration data in 10 patients.

Authors:  Vasileios Zampelis; Gunnar Flivik
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2020-09-15       Impact factor: 3.717

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.