Literature DB >> 25123241

Continued good results with modular trabecular metal augments for acetabular defects in hip arthroplasty at 7 to 11 years.

Michael R Whitehouse1, Bassam A Masri, Clive P Duncan, Donald S Garbuz.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Reconstruction of large acetabular defects remains a substantial challenge in hip arthroplasty. There remains a paucity of data on the long-term results of acetabular trabecular metal augments. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The purpose of this study was to assess the survivorship, clinical outcomes, restoration of center of rotation of the hip, and radiological signs of component fixation of trabecular metal augments in the context of reconstruction of acetabular defects.
METHODS: Between 2002 and 2005, we performed 56 revision (n=53) and primary (n=3) THAs using trabecular metal augments in combination with a trabecular metal acetabular component. Of the 56 patients, 16 (29%) died during followup. Of the 40 surviving patients, 37 (93%) had complete radiological followup, 23 (58%) had complete outcome questionnaire followup, and 17 (42%) provided partial questionnaire responses in the clinic or over the telephone. Median followup was 110 months (range, 88-128 months). During that period, we used these implants when preoperative templating indicated that an augment would be required to achieve acetabular implant stability with restoration of the hip center of rotation. We also chose during surgery to use an augment when we could not achieve a stable acetabular trial component without one. The combination of trabecular metal augments and trabecular metal shells was used in 18% (53 of 292) of our acetabular revisions during that time. Survivorship, functional outcome (WOMAC and Oxford hip score), health status (SF-12), and osseointegration according to the criteria of Moore and presence of radiolucencies were determined.
RESULTS: Survivorship of the augments at 10 years was 92% (95% confidence interval, 81%-97%). Four patients underwent cup revision, one for infection and three for loosening. The mean WOMAC global score was 79 (SD 17), the mean Oxford hip score 76 (SD 18), the mean physical component SF-12 score was 39 (SD 11), and the mean mental component SF-12 score was 52 (SD 9). The center of rotation was corrected from more than 35 mm above the inter-teardrop line in 48 of 56 patients preoperatively to only five of 46 postoperatively. One patient had radiographic findings suggestive of loosening, but this patient was asymptomatic.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of the acetabular trabecular metal augments continue to be encouraging in the medium to long term with low rates of revision or loosening in this complex group of patients. We continue to recommend the use of these augments in the reconstruction of complex acetabular defects. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25123241      PMCID: PMC4294936          DOI: 10.1007/s11999-014-3861-x

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


  41 in total

1.  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

2.  How superior placement of the joint center in hip arthroplasty affects the abductor muscles.

Authors:  S L Delp; R L Wixson; A V Komattu; J H Kocmond
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1996-07       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 3.  Clinical applications of Trabecular Metal.

Authors:  Michael J Christie
Journal:  Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ)       Date:  2002-04

4.  The use of a trabecular metal acetabular component and trabecular metal augment for severe acetabular defects.

Authors:  Scott M Sporer; Wayne G Paprosky
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 4.757

5.  Acetabular revision using a trabecular metal acetabular component for severe acetabular bone loss associated with a pelvic discontinuity.

Authors:  Scott M Sporer; Wayne G Paprosky
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 4.757

6.  The Oxford hip scores for primary and revision hip replacement.

Authors:  R E Field; M D Cronin; P J Singh
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2005-05

7.  Acetabular revision with metal mesh, impaction bone grafting, and a cemented cup.

Authors:  Martín A Buttaro; Fernando Comba; Rodolfo Pusso; Francisco Piccaluga
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2008-08-13       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  Acetabular revision in THA using tantalum augments combined with impaction bone grafting.

Authors:  Thorsten Gehrke; Yannic Bangert; Bernd Schwantes; Matthias Gebauer; Daniel Kendoff
Journal:  Hip Int       Date:  2013-06-17       Impact factor: 2.135

9.  Combined trabecular metal acetabular shell and augment for acetabular revision with substantial bone loss: a mid-term review.

Authors:  M Abolghasemian; S Tangsataporn; A Sternheim; D Backstein; O Safir; A E Gross
Journal:  Bone Joint J       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 5.082

10.  Acetabular revision with impacted morselized cancellous bone graft and a cemented cup in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. A concise follow-up, at eight to nineteen years, of a previous report.

Authors:  B Willem Schreurs; Jaap Luttjeboer; Truike M Thien; Maarten C de Waal Malefijt; Pieter Buma; René P H Veth; Tom J J H Slooff
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2009-03-01       Impact factor: 5.284

View more
  32 in total

1.  [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

2.  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

Review 3.  Acetabular reconstruction in revision total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  George W Fryhofer; Sireesh Ramesh; Neil P Sheth
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2019-12-02

4.  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

Review 5.  [Arthroplasty for osteoarthritis secondary to hip dysplasia: Problem-oriented treatment strategies].

Authors:  K P Günther; M Stiehler; J Goronzy; W Schneiders; A Hartmann
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 1.087

6.  Use of porous tantalum components in Paprosky two and three acetabular revision. A minimum five-year follow-up of fifty one hips.

Authors:  Xavier Flecher; Benjamin Appy; Sébastien Parratte; Matthieu Ollivier; Jean-Noel Argenson
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2016-10-21       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 7.  [Strategies for cup revision].

Authors:  Maik Stiehler; Klaus-Peter Günther; Jens Goronzy
Journal:  Orthopadie (Heidelb)       Date:  2022-06-27

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

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

9.  [Short-term effectiveness of acetabular reconstruction with three-dimensional printed trabecular metal pads in hip revision].

Authors:  Zhongyuan Zhang; Jinwei Zhao; Xiangjie Huang; Hexun Jiang; Ziyao Xu
Journal:  Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi       Date:  2019-12-15

10.  [Revision reasons and prosthesis selection of Crowe developmental dysplasia of hip after total hip arthroplasty].

Authors:  Junmin Shen; Yonggang Zhou; Jingyang Sun; Haiyang Ma; Yinqiao Du; Zhisen Gao; Yawen Peng; Jiying Chen
Journal:  Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi       Date:  2020-05-15
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.