Literature DB >> 27010392

Long-term clinical outcome of acetabular cup revision surgery: comparison of cemented cups, cementless cups, and cemented cups with reinforcement devices.

Yasuo Kokubo1, Hisashi Oki2, Daisuke Sugita2, Kohei Negoro2, Kenichi Takeno2, Tsuyoshi Miyazaki2, Hideaki Nakajima2.   

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to analyze the clinical and radiographic outcomes and Kaplan-Meier survivorship of patients who underwent revision surgeries of the acetabular cup that had sustained aseptic loosening. We reviewed 101 consecutive patients (120 hips; 10 men 11 hips; 91 women 109 hips; age at surgery 66 years; range 45-85) who underwent acetabular component revision surgery, at a follow-up period of 15.6 years (range 10-32). To evaluate the state of the acetabulum, acetabular bony defects were classified according to the AAOS classification based on intraoperative findings: type I (segmental deficiencies n = 24 hips), type II (cavity deficiency n = 48), type III (combined deficiency n = 46), and type IV (pelvic discontinuity n = 2). The Harris hip score improved from 42.5 ± 10.8 (mean ± SD) before surgery to 74.9 ± 14.6 points at follow-up. The survival rates of the acetabular revision surgery with cemented, cementless, and cemented cups plus reinforcement devices were 74, 66, and 82 %, respectively. The difference in the survival rate between the cemented and cementless group was marginal (p = 0.048 Gehan-Breslow-Wilcoxon, p = 0.061 log-rank), probably due to the early-stage failure cases in the cementless group. The cementless and reinforcement groups included nine early-stage failure cases. To prevent early-stage failure, we recommend the cementless cups for types I and II acetabular bone defects with adequate contact between host bone and acetabular component, and the cemented cup with or without reinforcement devices, together with restoration of bone stock by impaction or structured bone grafting, for cases lacking such contact.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Acetabulum; Bone grafting; Bony defect; Cemented cup; Cementless cup; Reinforcement device; Revision total hip arthroplasty

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27010392     DOI: 10.1007/s00590-016-1763-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol        ISSN: 1633-8065


  21 in total

1.  Nonlinear three-dimensional finite element analysis of newly designed cementless total hip stems.

Authors:  M Ando; S Imura; H Omori; Y Okumura; A Bo; H Baba
Journal:  Artif Organs       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 3.094

2.  Revision total hip replacement using the Kerboull acetabular reinforcement device with morsellised or bulk graft: results at a mean follow-up of 8.7 years.

Authors:  K Kawanabe; H Akiyama; E Onishi; T Nakamura
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2007-01

3.  Minimum 20-year follow-up results of revision total hip arthroplasty with improved cementing technique.

Authors:  Bryan N Trumm; John J Callaghan; Christopher A George; Steve S Liu; Devon D Goetz; Richard C Johnston
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2013-06-05       Impact factor: 4.757

4.  Results of the Müller acetabular reinforcement ring in revision arthroplasty.

Authors:  B Stöckl; J Beerkotte; M Krismer; M Fischer; R Bauer
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 3.067

5.  Initial implant stability predicts migration but not failure in cementless acetabular revision with bone grafting.

Authors:  Shelain Patel; Mohamed Sukeik; Fares S Haddad
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2013-03-13       Impact factor: 4.757

6.  Classification and management of acetabular abnormalities in total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  J A D'Antonio; W N Capello; L S Borden; W L Bargar; B F Bierbaum; W G Boettcher; M E Steinberg; S D Stulberg; J H Wedge
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1989-06       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  Results at a minimum of 10 years of follow-up for AMS and PerFix HA-coated cementless total hip arthroplasty: impact of cross-linked polyethylene on implant longevity.

Authors:  Yasuharu Nakashima; Taishi Sato; Takuaki Yamamoto; Goro Motomura; Masanobu Ohishi; Satoshi Hamai; Mio Akiyama; Masanobu Hirata; Daisuke Hara; Yukihide Iwamoto
Journal:  J Orthop Sci       Date:  2013-08-21       Impact factor: 1.601

8.  Fixation, survival, and dislocation of jumbo acetabular components in revision hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Paul F Lachiewicz; Elizabeth S Soileau
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2013-03-20       Impact factor: 5.284

9.  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

10.  A long-term survivorship comparison between cemented and uncemented cups with shelf grafts in revision total hip arthroplasty after dysplasia.

Authors:  Amir Sternheim; Mansour Abolghasemian; Oleg A Safir; David Backstein; Allan E Gross; Paul R Kuzyk
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2012-07-31       Impact factor: 4.757

View more
  2 in total

1.  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

2.  [Short- and mid-term effectiveness of impaction bone allograft with acetabular components in treatment of severe acetabular defects].

Authors:  Leilei Chen; Guoju Hong; Tianye Lin; Linfeng Huang; Qingwen Zhang; Wei He
Journal:  Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi       Date:  2020-03-15
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.