Literature DB >> 26467611

Custom Acetabular Cages Offer Stable Fixation and Improved Hip Scores for Revision THA With Severe Bone Defects.

Huiwu Li1, Xinhua Qu1, Yuanqing Mao1, Kerong Dai1, Zhenan Zhu2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Revision THA is particularly challenging in hips with severe acetabular bone loss. When the extent or geometry of the acetabular bone loss precludes more-straightforward techniques such as jumbo hemispheric cementless shells, reconstruction with morselized allograft protected by a custom cage may offer an alternative, but, to our knowledge, few series have reported on results with this approach. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: For patients with severe (Paprosky IIIB) defects, we asked: do individualized custom cages result in (1) improved Harris hip scores; (2) restoration of hip center; and (3) a low incidence of surgical complications?
METHODS: Twenty-six patients (26 hips) with a massive acetabular defect were involved in this study from 2003 to 2013. During this period, one patient was lost to followup and one died, leaving 24 patients (eight males, 16 females) in this retrospective analysis. The customized cages were individualized to each patient's bone defect based on rapid-prototype three-dimensional printed models. Mean followup was 67 months (range, 24-120 months). Harris hip scores were assessed before surgery and at each followup. Postoperative radiographs were evaluated for cage position, migration, and graft incorporation. Complications and reoperations were assessed by chart review.
RESULTS: The mean Harris hip score improved from 36 (SD, 8; range, 20-49) to 82 (SD, 18; range, 60-96) (p < 0.001). Individualized custom cages resulted in generally reliable restoration of the hip center. No rerevisions have been performed. None of the cups showed radiographic migration, but one cage was believed to be loose, based on a circumferential 2-mm radiolucent line. Cancellous allografts appeared to be incorporated in 23 of 24 patients. One deep infection and one superficial infection were observed and treated with irrigation, débridement, and vacuum-sealing drainage. One dislocation and one suspected injury of the superior gluteal nerve also were observed and treated conservatively.
CONCLUSIONS: Individualized custom cages using rapid prototyping and three-dimensional printing appeared to provide stable fixation and improved hip scores at short-term followup in this small, single-center series. As further improvements in the design and manufacturing process are made, future studies should evaluate larger patient groups for longer times, and, ideally, compare this approach with alternatives for these complex bone defects. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26467611      PMCID: PMC4746190          DOI: 10.1007/s11999-015-4587-0

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


  36 in total

1.  Acetabular revision arthroplasty using so-called jumbo cementless components: an average 7-year follow-up study.

Authors:  J T Dearborn; W H Harris
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 4.757

2.  Revision total hip arthroplasty with the use of structural acetabular allograft and reconstruction ring: a case series with a 10-year average follow-up.

Authors:  K J Saleh; G Jaroszynski; I Woodgate; L Saleh; A E Gross
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 4.757

3.  Reconstruction of segmental defects during revision procedures of the acetabulum with the Burch-Schneider anti-protrusio cage.

Authors:  C Perka; R Ludwig
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 4.757

4.  Technical factors for success with metal ring acetabular reconstruction.

Authors:  P Udomkiat; L D Dorr; Y Y Won; D Longjohn; Z Wan
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 4.757

5.  Bridging massive acetabular defects with the triflange cup: 2- to 9-year results.

Authors:  M J Christie; S A Barrington; M F Brinson; M E Ruhling; D K DeBoer
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 6.  Wear and periprosthetic osteolysis: the problem.

Authors:  W H Harris
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  Acetabular revision. The role of rings and cages.

Authors:  J Schatzker; M K Wong
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  Allogeneic cancellous bone graft and a Burch-Schneider ring for acetabular reconstruction in revision hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  E Winter; M Piert; R Volkmann; F Maurer; C Eingartner; K Weise; S Weller
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 5.284

9.  Acetabular reconstruction with morcellized allograft and ring support: a medium-term review.

Authors:  F S Haddad; N Shergill; S K Muirhead-Allwood
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 4.757

10.  CT-generated 3-dimensional models for complex acetabular reconstruction.

Authors:  S Munjal; S S Leopold; D Kornreich; S Shott; H A Finn
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 4.757

View more
  23 in total

Review 1.  Surgical applications of three-dimensional printing: a review of the current literature & how to get started.

Authors:  Don Hoang; David Perrault; Milan Stevanovic; Alidad Ghiassi
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2016-12

2.  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

3.  Three-dimensional printing for preoperative planning of total hip arthroplasty revision: case report.

Authors:  Joseph Zerr; Yonatan Chatzinoff; Rajiv Chopra; Kenneth Estrera; Avneesh Chhabra
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2016-08-01       Impact factor: 2.199

4.  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

5.  Functionally graded additive manufacturing for orthopedic applications.

Authors:  Saquib Rouf; Abrar Malik; Ankush Raina; Mir Irfan Ul Haq; Nida Naveed; Ali Zolfagharian; Mahdi Bodaghi
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2022-07-03

6.  Shape suitability and mechanical safety of customised hip implants: Three-dimensional printed acetabular cup for hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Yeokyung Kang; Doo-Hoon Sun; Jong-Chul Park; Jungsung Kim
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2022-08-27

Review 7.  3D printing- creating a blueprint for the future of orthopedics: Current concept review and the road ahead!

Authors:  Vaibhav Bagaria; Rakesh Bhansali; Prashant Pawar
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2018-07-23

Review 8.  [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

Review 9.  Three-dimensional Printing in Orthopaedic Surgery: Current Applications and Future Developments.

Authors:  Colleen M Wixted; Jonathan R Peterson; Rishin J Kadakia; Samuel B Adams
Journal:  J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev       Date:  2021-04-20

Review 10.  Application of 3D Printing in Hip and Knee Arthroplasty: A Narrative Review.

Authors:  Prasoon Kumar; Pulak Vatsya; Rajesh Kumar Rajnish; Aman Hooda; Mandeep S Dhillon
Journal:  Indian J Orthop       Date:  2020-10-06       Impact factor: 1.251

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.