Literature DB >> 25277762

Acetabular defect reconstruction in revision hip arthroplasty with a modular revision system and biological defect augmentation.

Jan Schmolders1, Max J Friedrich, Robert D Michel, Thomas M Randau, Matthias D Wimmer, Andreas C Strauss, Hendrik Kohlhof, Dieter C Wirtz, Sascha Gravius.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Revision of failed total hip arthroplasty with severe acetabular bone loss represents a rare but challenging problem. Anatomic reconstruction with biological defect augmentation as solid bone transplants or cancellous bone restores bone stock while providing good component stability. The objective of this study was to present short- to mid-term results of revision total hip arthroplasty with a modular ring system in a consecutive series of patients with severe acetabular bone loss.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 39 consecutive patients (39 hips) with severe acetabular bone loss (Paprosky type 3 A and 3 B) reconstructed with revision total hip arthroplasty using the cementless modular ring system MRS-Titan®. The MRS-Titan® consists of independent ring systems that are adapted modularly to the defect situation. Combined with acetabular defect reconstruction by using cancellous bone in impaction grafting technique, the MRS-Titan® system offers a cement-free revision system that enables defect-adapted customization to individual anatomic matters, bridging of the acetabular bone defect and reconstruction of the centre of rotation. Initial stability of the implant was obtained by screw fixation. Harris hip score and sequential radiographs were used to evaluate clinical and radiographic results.
RESULTS: At an average follow up of 31 months (range 12-69 months) 33 of 39 (84.6 %) of the implants were considered radiographically stable without signs of acetabular migration of more than 2 mm in the horizontal or vertical direction, implant rotation or screw breakage. Complications included six implant failures (15 %). We recorded one aseptic loosening of the MRS prosthesis after 20 months. Five patients (12.8 %) had to undergo revision surgery because of periprosthetic joint infection. Two patients had a dislocation postoperatively. The mean Harris hip score improved from 27 ± 14 points preoperatively to 76 ± 15 points at the time of last follow up.
CONCLUSION: By achieving stable implant fixation and providing potential for biological fixation, treatment of severe acetabular bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty with the modular ring system MRS-Titan provides a durable solution with good clinical and radiographic results and allows us to accomplish major goals of reconstruction.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25277762     DOI: 10.1007/s00264-014-2533-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Orthop        ISSN: 0341-2695            Impact factor:   3.075


  40 in total

1.  The use of reinforcement rings to reconstruct deficient acetabula.

Authors:  J Rosson; J Schatzker
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1992-09

2.  Acetabular revision with a modular anti-protrusio acetabular component.

Authors:  Christopher L Peters; Michael Miller; Jill Erickson; Perry Hall; Kent Samuelson
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 4.757

Review 3.  [What can be done when hip prostheses fail? : New trends in revision endoprosthetics].

Authors:  S Gravius; T Randau; D C Wirtz
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 1.087

4.  Mueller reinforcement rings in acetabular revision: outcome in 164 hips followed for 2-17 years.

Authors:  Ulf J Schlegel; Rudi G Bitsch; Maria Pritsch; Martin Clauss; Hans Mau; Steffen J Breusch
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 3.717

5.  Ganz reinforcement rings in acetabular revision: indications and medium-term results.

Authors:  A Capone; V Setzu; F Ennas; R Civinini; M I Gusso
Journal:  Chir Organi Mov       Date:  2004 Apr-Jun

6.  Isolated acetabular revision after total hip arthroplasty: results at 5-9 years of follow-up.

Authors:  Xiao-Dong Chen; James P Waddell; Jane Morton; Emil H Schemitsch
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2005-08-11       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 7.  Cementless acetabular revision: past, present, and future. Revision total hip arthroplasty: the acetabular side using cementless implants.

Authors:  Luis Pulido; Sridhar R Rachala; Miguel E Cabanela
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2011-01-14       Impact factor: 3.075

8.  [Hooked roof cup in revision of difficult loose hip prosthesis cups. Results after a minimum of 10 years].

Authors:  K A Siebenrock; M Trochsler; H Sadri; R Ganz
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 1.087

9.  Acetabular cup positioning in revision total hip arthroplasty with Paprosky type III acetabular defects: Martell radiographic analysis.

Authors:  Ho-Rim Choi; David Anderson; Scott Foster; Matthew Beal; Jo Ann Lee; Christopher Barr; Henrik Malchau; Joseph McCarthy; Young-Min Kwon
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2013-07-24       Impact factor: 3.075

10.  Revision arthroplasty using an anti-protrusio cage for massive acetabular bone deficiency.

Authors:  D J Berry; M E Müller
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1992-09
View more
  8 in total

1.  The augment-and-modular-cage revision system for reconstruction of severe acetabular defects-two-year clinical and radiographic results.

Authors:  Philip P Roessler; Max Jaenisch; Manuel Kuhlmann; Miriam Wacker; P Johannes Wagenhäuser; Sascha Gravius; Dieter C Wirtz
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2018-12-11       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  Validation of the Charlson comorbidity index in patients undergoing revision total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Jan Schmolders; Max J Friedrich; Robert Michel; Andreas C Strauss; Matthias D Wimmer; Thomas M Randau; Peter H Pennekamp; Dieter C Wirtz; Sascha Gravius
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2015-06-24       Impact factor: 3.075

3.  Outcome of cages in revision arthroplasty of the acetabulum: a systematic review.

Authors:  Alessandro Aprato; Matteo Olivero; Luigi Branca Vergano; Alessandro Massè
Journal:  Acta Biomed       Date:  2019-01-10

Review 4.  [Allogeneic bone transplantation in hip revision surgery : Indications and potential for reconstruction].

Authors:  G A Ahmed; B Ishaque; M Rickert; C Fölsch
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2018-01       Impact factor: 1.087

5.  Segmental acetabular rim defects, bone loss, oversizing, and press fit cup in total hip arthroplasty evaluated with a probabilistic finite element analysis.

Authors:  Farid Amirouche; Giovanni F Solitro; Amit Walia; Mark Gonzalez; Aimee Bobko
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2016-12-23       Impact factor: 3.075

6.  [Bone defect adjusted strategy in revision arthroplasty of the hip : Wich implant in wich situation? Innovations and approved methods].

Authors:  B S Craiovan; J Grifka; A Keshmiri; B Moser; M Wörner; T Renkawitz
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2015-05       Impact factor: 1.087

7.  The use of customized cages in revision total hip arthroplasty for Paprosky type III acetabular bone defects.

Authors:  Yuanqing Mao; Chen Xu; Jiawei Xu; Huiwu Li; Fengxiang Liu; Degang Yu; Zhenan Zhu
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2015-08-19       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 8.  [Biological downsizing : Acetabular defect reconstruction in revision total hip arthroplasty].

Authors:  S Koob; S Scheidt; T M Randau; M Gathen; M D Wimmer; D C Wirtz; S Gravius
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 1.087

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.