Literature DB >> 25315276

Are custom triflange acetabular components effective for reconstruction of catastrophic bone loss?

Carl C Berasi1, Keith R Berend, Joanne B Adams, Erin L Ruh, Adolph V Lombardi.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although the introduction of ultraporous metals in the forms of acetabular components and augments has increased the orthopaedic surgeon's ability to reconstruct severely compromised acetabuli, there remain some that cannot be managed readily using cups, augments, or cages. In such situations, allograft-prosthetic composites or custom acetabular components may be called for. However, few studies have reported on the results of these components. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The purposes of this study were to determine the (1) frequency of repeat revision, (2) complications and radiographic findings, and (3) Harris hip scores in patients who underwent complex acetabular revision surgery with custom acetabular components.
METHODS: Between August 2003 and February 2012, 26 patients (28 hips) have undergone acetabular reconstruction with custom triflange components. During this time, the general indications for using these implants included (1) failed prior salvage reconstruction with cage or porous metal construct augments, (2) large contained defects with possible discontinuity, (3) known pelvic discontinuity, and (4) complex multiply surgically treated hips with insufficient bone stock to reconstruct using other means. This approach was used in a cohort of patients with Paprosky Type 3B acetabular defects, which represented 3% (30 of 955) of the acetabular revisions we performed during the study period. Minimum followup was 2 years (mean, 57 months; range, 28-108 months). Seven patients (eight hips) died during the study period, and three (11%) of these patients (four hips; 14%) were lost to followup before 2 years, leaving 23 patients (24 hips) with minimum 2-year followup. Sixteen patients were women. The mean age of the patients was 67 years (range, 47-85 years) and mean BMI was 28 kg/m2 (range, 23-39 kg/m2). Revisions and complications were identified by chart review; hip scores were registered in our institution's longitudinal database. Pre- and postoperative radiographs were analyzed by the patient's surgeon to determine whether migration, fracture of fixation screws, or continued bone loss had occurred.
RESULTS: There have been four subsequent surgical interventions: two failures secondary to sepsis, and one stem revision and one open reduction internal fixation for periprosthetic femoral fracture. There were two minor complications managed nonoperatively, but all of the components were noted to be well-fixed with no obvious migration or loosening observed on the most recent radiographs. Harris hip scores improved from a mean of 42 (SD, ±16) before surgery to 65 (SD, ±18) at latest followup (p<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Custom acetabular triflange components represent yet another tool in the reconstructive surgeon's armamentarium. These devices can be helpful in situations of catastrophic bone loss. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25315276      PMCID: PMC4294939          DOI: 10.1007/s11999-014-3969-z

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


  27 in total

1.  Revision arthroplasty of the acetabulum with restoration of bone stock.

Authors:  A E Gross
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Reconstruction of major column defects and pelvic discontinuity in revision total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  J B Stiehl; R Saluja; T Diener
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 4.757

3.  High placement of an acetabular component inserted without cement in a revision total hip arthroplasty. Results after a mean of ten years.

Authors:  J T Dearborn; W H Harris
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 5.284

4.  Modular porous metal augments for treatment of severe acetabular bone loss during revision hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Alexandre Nehme; David G Lewallen; Arlen D Hanssen
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Early experience with eccentric acetabular components in revision total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  C J Sutherland
Journal:  Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ)       Date:  1996-04

6.  Acetabular defect classification and surgical reconstruction in revision arthroplasty. A 6-year follow-up evaluation.

Authors:  W G Paprosky; P G Perona; J M Lawrence
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  1994-02       Impact factor: 4.757

7.  Bulk structural autogenous grafts and allografts for reconstruction of the acetabulum in total hip arthroplasty. Sixteen-year-average follow-up.

Authors:  A A Shinar; W H Harris
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1997-02       Impact factor: 5.284

8.  Bilobed oblong porous coated acetabular components in revision total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  D J Berry; C J Sutherland; R T Trousdale; C W Colwell; H P Chandler; D Ayres; A A Yashar
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  Trabecular Metal buttress augment and the Trabecular Metal cup-cage construct in revision hip arthroplasty for severe acetabular bone loss and pelvic discontinuity.

Authors:  Juan José Ballester Alfaro; José Sueiro Fernández
Journal:  Hip Int       Date:  2010-05-27       Impact factor: 2.135

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
  22 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.  Three-dimension-printed custom-made prosthetic reconstructions: from revision surgery to oncologic reconstructions.

Authors:  Andrea Angelini; Giulia Trovarelli; Antonio Berizzi; Elisa Pala; Anna Breda; Pietro Ruggieri
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2018-11-22       Impact factor: 3.075

3.  Custom triflange revision acetabular components for significant bone defects and pelvic discontinuity: Early UK experience.

Authors:  Hosam E Matar; Veenesh Selvaratnam; Nikhil Shah; Henry Wynn Jones
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2020-02-04

4.  Glenoid bone loss in primary and revision shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  Amar Malhas; Abbas Rashid; Dave Copas; Steve Bale; Ian Trail
Journal:  Shoulder Elbow       Date:  2016-05-06

5.  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

6.  Acetabular reconstruction with a custom-made triflange acetabular component through direct anterior approach - A case report.

Authors:  Anthony Van Eemeren; Jan Vanlommel; Maxence Vandekerckhove
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2020-02-14

Review 7.  [Clinical application of three-dimensional printed metal prosthesis in joint surgery].

Authors:  Yutao Cui; Zuhao Li; Qian Wan; Xianggang Wang; Shengyang Li; Zhenxiao Ren; Zhonghan Wang; Fan Yang; He Liu; Dankai Wu
Journal:  Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi       Date:  2019-06-15

8.  The use of a triflange salvage system for catastrophic pelvic osteolysis after failed total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Matthew A Siegel; Michael J Patetta; Jason Y Chen; Diego M Barragan Echenique; Mark H Gonzalez
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2021-04-02

9.  3D Printed Acetabular Components for Complex Revision Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Angela Yao; Daniel Mark George; Vijai Ranawat; Chris John Wilson
Journal:  Indian J Orthop       Date:  2021-01-03       Impact factor: 1.251

10.  The Dome Technique, an Option for Massive Anterosuperior Medial Acetabular Bone Loss: A Retrospective Case Series.

Authors:  Christopher M Melnic; Matthew Knedel; P Maxwell Courtney; Neil P Sheth; Wayne G Paprosky
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2019-12-16
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.