Literature DB >> 25106802

Porous metal acetabular components have a low rate of mechanical failure in THA after operatively treated acetabular fracture.

Brandon J Yuan1, David G Lewallen, Arlen D Hanssen.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Total hip arthroplasty (THA) for the treatment of posttraumatic osteoarthritis (OA) after acetabular fracture has been associated with a high likelihood of aseptic loosening, instability, and infection. Porous metal components may help to address the issue of loosening, but there are few data on the use of porous metal acetabular components for posttraumatic OA after acetabular fracture. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: Using an institutional registry, we aimed to report (1) radiographic evidence of fixation; (2) survivorship free from revision; (3) Harris hip scores; and (4) complications and reoperations after THA with a porous metal acetabular component for posttraumatic OA in patients previously treated with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of a displaced acetabular fracture.
METHODS: Thirty primary THAs were performed with a porous metal acetabular component for the treatment of posttraumatic OA after ORIF of an acetabular fracture from 1999 through 2010; of these, 28 (93%) were available for followup at a minimum of 2 years. During that same time, 51 primary THAs were performed using other acetabular designs in patients who had previously undergone ORIF of the acetabulum. During the period in question, the general indications for use of porous metal in this setting included compromised acetabular bone stock or quality to the extent that the treating surgeon believed primary fixation with a titanium shell and screws may have been difficult to achieve. Mean age at the time of arthroplasty was 45 years (range, 23-75 years). Median time from ORIF to THA and from THA to last followup was 107 months (range, 4 months to 42 years) and 60 months (range, 25 months to 10 years), respectively. Radiographs were reviewed for this specific study to evaluate the components for evidence of osteointegration. Survivorship free from revision, hip scores, and complications were extracted from our institutional database and electronic medical record.
RESULTS: No acetabular or femoral components were revised for aseptic loosening. Five-year survival with revision for any reason as the endpoint was 88% (95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.96). Harris hip scores improved from a median of 39 preoperatively (range, 3-87) to 82 at last followup (range, 21-100; p<0.01). Three hips (11%) underwent resection for infection and all three had been treated with staged arthroplasty for concern of infection. Two patients (7%) experienced at least one dislocation postoperatively.
CONCLUSIONS: The short-term results of the use of porous metal acetabular components in THA for treatment of posttraumatic OA after acetabular fracture demonstrate low rates of mechanical failure. Although infection and instability remain major concerns in patients with this diagnosis seemingly regardless of the implant design used, porous metal components appear to offer a high likelihood of osseointegration in this clinical setting. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25106802      PMCID: PMC4294918          DOI: 10.1007/s11999-014-3852-y

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


  28 in total

1.  Uncemented acetabular components for arthritis after acetabular fracture.

Authors:  Daniel J Berry; Michael Halasy
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Fractures of the acetabulum: accuracy of reduction and clinical results in patients managed operatively within three weeks after the injury.

Authors:  J M Matta
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1996-11       Impact factor: 5.284

3.  Radiological demarcation of cemented sockets in total hip replacement.

Authors:  J G DeLee; J Charnley
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1976 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation.

Authors:  W H Harris
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1969-06       Impact factor: 5.284

5.  Ectopic ossification following total hip replacement. Incidence and a method of classification.

Authors:  A F Brooker; J W Bowerman; R A Robinson; L H Riley
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1973-12       Impact factor: 5.284

6.  "Modes of failure" of cemented stem-type femoral components: a radiographic analysis of loosening.

Authors:  T A Gruen; G M McNeice; H C Amstutz
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1979-06       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 7.  Operative treatment of displaced fractures of the acetabulum. A meta-analysis.

Authors:  P V Giannoudis; M R W Grotz; C Papakostidis; H Dinopoulos
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2005-01

8.  Clinical and roentgenographic assessment of total hip arthroplasty. A new hip score.

Authors:  B F Kavanagh; R H Fitzgerald
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1985-03       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  Total hip arthroplasty with porous metal cups following acetabular fracture.

Authors:  Atul F Kamath; Perry J Evangelista; Charles L Nelson
Journal:  Hip Int       Date:  2013-06-10       Impact factor: 2.135

10.  Total hip arthroplasty after operative treatment of an acetabular fracture.

Authors:  M Weber; D J Berry; W S Harmsen
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 5.284

View more
  6 in total

1.  CORR Insights(®): Total Hip Arthroplasty After Acetabular Fracture Is Associated With Lower Survivorship and More Complications.

Authors:  Michael A Mont; Randa K Elmallah
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-09-29       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Bone filling decreases donor site morbidity after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with bone-patellar tendon-bone autografts.

Authors:  Ittai Shichman; David Baruchi; Gil Rachevsky; Nissan Amzallag; Addy S Brandstetter; Matias Vidra; Guy Morag
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2022-08-02       Impact factor: 2.928

3.  A New Classification System for Acetabular Bone Defect Evaluation in Posttraumatic Acetabular Nonunion and Malunion.

Authors:  Ramesh K Sen; Reet Mukhopadhyay; Veeresh Pattanshetti; Gaurav Saini; Sujit Kumar Tripathy; Siddharth Sekhar Sethy; Suresh Kumar Sharma
Journal:  Indian J Orthop       Date:  2022-06-27       Impact factor: 1.033

4.  Should Total Hip Arthroplasty be Performed Acutely in the Treatment of Acetabular Fractures in Elderly or Used as a Salvage Procedure Only?

Authors:  Katharine Hamlin; Gabija Lazaraviciute; Michalis Koullouros; Tarak Chouari; Iain M Stevenson; Steven W Hamilton
Journal:  Indian J Orthop       Date:  2017 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.251

5.  Delayed total hip arthroplasty after failed treatment of acetabular fractures: an 8- to 17-year follow-up study.

Authors:  Tao Wang; Jun-Ying Sun; Jun-Jun Zha; Chao Wang; Xi-Jiang Zhao
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2018-08-22       Impact factor: 2.359

6.  Total hip arthroplasty for failed acetabular fracture: a double-center comparative study on failed proximal femur fracture.

Authors:  Jun-Ki Moon; Ho Lee; Pil Whan Yoon; Ki-Chul Park; Jae Suk Chang; Ji Wan Kim
Journal:  Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg       Date:  2021-07-05       Impact factor: 3.693

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.