Literature DB >> 30539219

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

Philip P Roessler1, Max Jaenisch2, Manuel Kuhlmann2, Miriam Wacker2, P Johannes Wagenhäuser3, Sascha Gravius2, Dieter C Wirtz2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Acetabular revision of failed total hip arthroplasty (THA) is often associated with severe bone loss. Therefore, a variety of revision implant systems has been developed during recent years, with the augment-and-modular-cage system being one of the newest additions to this portfolio. Together with biologic downsizing by means of impaction bone grafting, this uncemented system promises a high modularity and versatility to treat all acetabular defects up to Paprosky types IIIa and IIIb without pelvic discontinuity. The aim of the present study was to evaluate first short-term results of its clinical application, both clinical functional and patient-reported as well as radiographic.
METHODS: Forty-four patients (28 female, 16 male, mean age 70.9 ± 11.5 years) could be followed for a mean of 26 ± 10 months after acetabular revision with a novel augment-and-modular-cage system. Indications for revision included aseptic loosening (68%), septic loosening (16%), or others (16%) with bone loss Paprosky IIa up to IIIb without discontinuity. The modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) served as a primary outcome parameter. In addition, a number of patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) were collected including the Short Form 36 (SF-36), Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS), and Visual Analogue Scale for Hip Pain (VAS Hip) as well as overall satisfaction. Radiographic changes between the pre- and postoperative center of rotation (COR) and various criteria of implant failure served as secondary outcome parameters.
RESULTS: No patients were lost to follow-up. Two implant-associated complications (partial flange breakage) without a need for revision surgery were detected, which represent a failure rate of 4.5%. Functional outcome as measured by mHHS increased from 49.4 ± 2.9 pre-operatively to 74.4 ± 3.1 at the latest follow-up (p < 0.001). PROMs showed significant improvements in all pain-related categories, while other quality-of-life measurements only exhibited positive tendencies towards improvement. VAS Hip significantly improved from 6.5 ± 0.7 pre-operatively to 2.2 ± 0.6 at the latest follow-up (p < 0.001). Radiographic evaluation showed that reconstruction of the COR was possible, referenced to the contralateral side. The COR could be lateralized by 5.0 mm (n.s.) and caudalized by 10.3 mm (p < 0.001) comparing pre-operative and post-operative states, with complete osseointegration in 95% of the cases.
CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with the augment-and-modular-cage system significantly improved clinical functional and patient-reported outcomes in cases of acetabular revision after failed THA. In addition, a good reconstruction of the COR could also be achieved. Therefore, this highly modular system can be considered as an effective treatment option in almost all cases of acetabular bone loss except for those of pelvic discontinuity. It offers the unique possibility of intra-operative implant customization according to the existing bone defect and host bone quality.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Acetabular revision surgery; Acetabulum; Augment-and-modular-cage; Hip; Modular cup arthroplasty; Uncemented fixation

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30539219     DOI: 10.1007/s00264-018-4271-6

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


  35 in total

1.  Total hip revision using a cup design with a peg to treat severe pelvic bone defects.

Authors:  P Desbonnet; H Connes; P Escare; J L Tricoire; J Trouillas
Journal:  Orthop Traumatol Surg Res       Date:  2012-04-05       Impact factor: 2.256

2.  Radiological demarcation of cemented sockets in total hip replacement.

Authors:  J G DeLee; J Charnley
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1976 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  Outcome after total hip arthroplasty. Comparison of a traditional disease-specific and a quality-of-life measurement of outcome.

Authors:  J R Lieberman; F Dorey; P Shekelle; L Schumacher; D J Kilgus; B J Thomas; G A Finerman
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  1997-09       Impact factor: 4.757

4.  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

5.  Major acetabular defects treated with the Burch-Schneider antiprotrusion cage and impaction bone allograft in a large series: a 5- to 7- year follow-up study.

Authors:  Axel Marx; Alexander Beier; Anne Richter; Christoph H Lohmann; Andreas M Halder
Journal:  Hip Int       Date:  2016-09-20       Impact factor: 2.135

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

Authors:  Jan Schmolders; Max J Friedrich; Robert D Michel; Thomas M Randau; Matthias D Wimmer; Andreas C Strauss; Hendrik Kohlhof; Dieter C Wirtz; Sascha Gravius
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2014-10-04       Impact factor: 3.075

7.  Ganz reinforcement ring for reconstruction of acetabular defects in revision total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Ariane Gerber; Markus Pisan; David Zurakowski; Balz Isler
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 5.284

8.  Ceramic-on-Ceramic in Total Hip Replacement Revision.

Authors:  Davide Cucchi; Martin Gathen; Robert Streicher; Dieter Christian Wirtz
Journal:  Z Orthop Unfall       Date:  2018-02-27       Impact factor: 0.923

9.  The partial pelvic replacement cup in severe acetabular defects.

Authors:  S A Lietman; K Bhavnani
Journal:  Orthopedics       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 1.390

10.  Comparison of the stability of three fixation techniques between porous metal acetabular components and augments.

Authors:  N A Beckmann; R G Bitsch; M Gondan; M Schonhoff; S Jaeger
Journal:  Bone Joint Res       Date:  2018-05-05       Impact factor: 5.853

View more
  4 in total

1.  A pre-operative grade 3 J-sign adversely affects short-term clinical outcome and is more likely to yield MPFL residual graft laxity in recurrent patellar dislocation.

Authors:  ZhiJun Zhang; Hui Zhang; GuanYang Song; Tong Zheng; Hua Feng
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2019-10-14       Impact factor: 4.342

2.  [Use of custom-made acetabular components (CMAC) as part of a two-stage procedure in patients with severe periacetabular bone loss].

Authors:  Frank Sebastian Fröschen; Thomas Martin Randau; Sebastian Gottfried Walter; Franz Dally; Dieter Christian Wirtz; Sascha Gravius
Journal:  Oper Orthop Traumatol       Date:  2022-04-01       Impact factor: 1.286

3.  Acetabular defects in revision hip arthroplasty: a therapy-oriented classification.

Authors:  Dieter Christian Wirtz; Max Jaenisch; Thiemo Antonius Osterhaus; Martin Gathen; Matthias Wimmer; Thomas Martin Randau; Frank Alexander Schildberg; Philip Peter Rössler
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2020-02-25       Impact factor: 3.067

4.  Mid-term results of revision surgery using double-trabecular metal cups alone or combined with impaction bone grafting for complex acetabular defects.

Authors:  Xianghong Zhang; Zhihong Li; Wanchun Wang; Tang Liu; Weiqiu Peng
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2020-08-06       Impact factor: 2.359

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.