BACKGROUND: Massive acetabular bone defects reconstructed with allografting and antiprotrusio cage in revision hip arthroplasty is less reported in the literature. We here report a series of 84 antiprotrusio cages and analyze the risk factors associated with failure. METHODS: All instances of use of an antiprotrusio cage for massive acetabular defect (Paprosky type IIc, III, and pelvic discontinuity) between 2002 and 2017 in the authors' institute were reviewed after institutional review board's approval. Survival analyses based on clinical data, bone defect (Paprosky system), type of allograft, size of cage, fixation quality, and position of cage were performed. Failure was defined as cage loosening or breakage, poor hip function, or cage revision for any reason. RESULTS: A total of 84 cages in 77 patients (mean age, 62.9 years), with a mean follow-up period of 6.2 years, had a survival rate of 82.1%. Failure was noted in 15 hips, including mechanical failure in 8 hips, recurrent dislocation in 1 hip, poor hip function in 1 hip, and periprosthetic joint infection in 5 hips. Pelvic discontinuity, reconstruction with morselized allograft alone, and fewer than 4 fixation points to the host bone were associated with higher failure rates (hazard ratios, 4.02, 3.42, and 9.9, respectively). CONCLUSION: We found that an antiprotrusio cage combined with strut allografts, fixed securely to the host bone (>4 fixation points), are beneficial for the management of massive acetabular bone defects. However, pelvic discontinuity remains a challenge that warrants the further study of technical or prosthetic innovations, such as triflange implants, cup cage, and 3D-printed implants.
BACKGROUND: Massive acetabular bone defects reconstructed with allografting and antiprotrusio cage in revision hip arthroplasty is less reported in the literature. We here report a series of 84 antiprotrusio cages and analyze the risk factors associated with failure. METHODS: All instances of use of an antiprotrusio cage for massive acetabular defect (Paprosky type IIc, III, and pelvic discontinuity) between 2002 and 2017 in the authors' institute were reviewed after institutional review board's approval. Survival analyses based on clinical data, bone defect (Paprosky system), type of allograft, size of cage, fixation quality, and position of cage were performed. Failure was defined as cage loosening or breakage, poor hip function, or cage revision for any reason. RESULTS: A total of 84 cages in 77 patients (mean age, 62.9 years), with a mean follow-up period of 6.2 years, had a survival rate of 82.1%. Failure was noted in 15 hips, including mechanical failure in 8 hips, recurrent dislocation in 1 hip, poor hip function in 1 hip, and periprosthetic joint infection in 5 hips. Pelvic discontinuity, reconstruction with morselized allograft alone, and fewer than 4 fixation points to the host bone were associated with higher failure rates (hazard ratios, 4.02, 3.42, and 9.9, respectively). CONCLUSION: We found that an antiprotrusio cage combined with strut allografts, fixed securely to the host bone (>4 fixation points), are beneficial for the management of massive acetabular bone defects. However, pelvic discontinuity remains a challenge that warrants the further study of technical or prosthetic innovations, such as triflange implants, cup cage, and 3D-printed implants.