| Literature DB >> 30774533 |
Jaime J Morales De Cano1, Llorenç Guillamet1, Arturo Perez Pons1.
Abstract
Objectives: Severe pelvic deficiency presents a difficult problem in hip arthroplasty. Specifically, the goals are to restore the pelvic bone stock, place the acetabular component in the correct anatomical position, and optimize joint stability. Currently, many surgical techniques have been developed for prosthetic revision surgery for acetabular complex defects, but no consensus has been reached on the best treatment. The objective of this study was to review mid-term cases of severe bone defect (Paprosky type III) treated with a bone allograft and ring Bursch-Schneider anti-protrusion cage (BSAC).Entities:
Keywords: Joint revision; bone graft; hip arthroplasty; reconstructive surgical procedure
Year: 2019 PMID: 30774533 PMCID: PMC6362699 DOI: 10.1590/1413-785220192701187313
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Acta Ortop Bras ISSN: 1413-7852 Impact factor: 0.513
Summary of the 23 consecutive acetabular impaction graftings performed by using impaction grafting of a defect that has been contained with a metallic Bursch-Schneider antiprotusio cage, followed by implantation of a cemented polyethylene cup.
| Case | Gender | Age | Merle ‘Aubigne score | Prior surgeries | Type acetabular defect | Side | Intervencio | Graft type | Type of cage | Concomitant femoral revision | Merle D'Aubigne score | Follow-up (months) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Preop. | Postop. | |||||||||||
| 1 | F | 74 | 6 | 2 | 3.A | R | SEPTIC | Fresh frozen | BSAG | Yes | 14 | 48 |
| 2 | F | 76 | 5 | 1 | 3.A | R | Mechanical failure | Fresh frozen | BSAG | Yes | 16 | 51 |
| 3 | F | 79 | 7 | 1 | 3.B | R | Mechanical failure | Fresh frozen | BSAG | Yes | 17 | 60 |
| 4 | F | 82 | 6 | 3 | 3.B | R | Mechanical failure | Fresh frozen | BSAG | Yes | 16 | 59 |
| 5 | F | 73 | 7 | 3 | 3.A | R | Mechanical failure | Fresh frozen | BSAG | Yes | 16 | 56 |
| 6 | M | 71 | 6 | 1 | 3.A | R | Mechanical failure | Fresh frozen | BSAG | No | 16 | 49 |
| 7 | M | 78 | 5 | 1 | 3.B | R | Mechanical failure | Fresh frozen | BSAG | Yes | 17 | 53 |
| 8 | M | 83 | 7 | 1 | 3.A | R | Mechanical failure | Fresh frozen | BSAG | No | 15 | 54 |
| 9 | M | 85 | 8 | 2 | 3.A | R | Instability | Fresh frozen | BSAG | No | 16 | 51 |
| 10 | M | 88 | 7 | 1 | 3.B | R | Mechanical failure | Fresh frozen | BSAG | No | 15 | 49 |
| 11 | M | 77 | 6 | 2 | 3.B | R | Mechanical failure | Fresh frozen | BSAG | Yes | 17 | 48 |
| 12 | F | 68 | 6 | 2 | 3.A | L | RECANVI PTM ESQ. | Fresh frozen | BSAG | Yes | 16 | 58 |
| 13 | F | 69 | 8 | 1 | 3.A | L | Mechanical failure | Fresh frozen | BSAG | Yes | 17 | 54 |
| 14 | F | 75 | 7 | 1 | 3.A | L | Mechanical failure | Fresh frozen | BSAG | No | 15 | 52 |
| 15 | F | 76 | 6 | 3 | 3.B | L | Mechanical failure | Fresh frozen | BSAG | Yes | 16 | 49 |
| 16 | F | 77 | 7 | 1 | 3.A | L | Mechanical failure | Fresh frozen | BSAG | Yes | 17 | 48 |
| 17 | F | 77 | 7 | 2 | 3.A | L | Mechanical failure | Fresh frozen | BSAG | No | 16 | 55 |
| 18 | F | 82 | 6 | 2 | 3.B | L | SEPTIC | Fresh frozen | BSAG | Yes | 16 | 49 |
| 19 | F | 83 | 6 | 3 | 3.A | L | Mechanical failure | Fresh frozen | BSAG | Yes | 16 | 48 |
| 20 | M | 72 | 6 | 3 | 3.A | L | Mechanical failure | Fresh frozen | BSAG | No | 17 | 54 |
| 21 | M | 73 | 7 | 2 | 3.B | L | Mechanical failure | Fresh frozen | BSAG | Yes | 15 | 55 |
| 22 | M | 75 | 8 | 1 | 3.A | L | Mechanical failure | Fresh frozen | BSAG | Yes | 16 | 52 |
| 23 | M | 79 | 9 | 2 | 3.A | L | SEPTIC | Fresh frozen | BSAG | Yes | 16 | 50 |
Figure 1Digital subtraction angiography (DSA).
Figure 2A) Extensive posterolateral acetabular exposure with massive bone loss. B) Reconstruction acetabular with a allograft and Bursch-Schneider antiprotusio cage.
Figure 3Stable fixation 4 years follow-up of a revision THA in defect Paprosky type 3 B.
Figure 4A) Preoperative acetabular defect paprosky type 3 B. B) Five years follow-up acetabular reconstruction.