Literature DB >> 35362782

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

Frank Sebastian Fröschen1, Thomas Martin Randau2, Sebastian Gottfried Walter2, Franz Dally3, Dieter Christian Wirtz2, Sascha Gravius3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Implantation of custom-made acetabular components (CMAC) with load transmission onto the remaining bone stock and reconstruction of the "center of rotation" (COR) in cases of severe periacetabular bone defects. INDICATIONS: Severe periacetabular bone loss (Paprosky type IIIA/B) with or without pelvic discontinuity after septic or aseptic loosening with inadequate load capacity of the dorsal pillar and/or large supraacetabular defects. CONTRAINDICATIONS: Acute or local infections, lack of compliance, taking into account the risks and complications: missing or limited expected postoperative functional gain, multimorbid patients with potential inoperability during the first and/or second intervention. SURGICAL TECHNIQUE: Lateral transgluteal or posterolateral approach while protecting neurovascular and muscular structures. Preparation of the implant site based on preoperative planning with augmentation of bone defects as far as possible. Primarily stable anchoring with 2 angle-stable pole screws in the ilium, an optional pole screw in the pubic bone for determination of COR, and stabilization screws in the iliac wing (optionally angle-stable). Use of dual mobility cup according to the soft tissue tension and intraoperative stability. POSTOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT: For the first 6 weeks postoperative partial weight-bearing (20 kg), followed by a gradual increase of the load (10 kg per week).
RESULTS: Between 2008 and 2018, 47 patients with a Paprosky type III defect underwent implantation of a monoflanged CMAC. Main complication was a periprosthetic joint infection with subsequent need for implant removal in 9 of 10 cases. Harris Hip Score improved from 21.1 to 61.5 points. X‑ray imaging displayed an angle of inclination of 42.3 ± 5.3°, an anteversion of 16.8 ± 6.2°, a ∆ H of 0.5 ± 0.2 mm and a ∆ V of 17.7 ± 1.1 mm according to Roessler et al.
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Acetabular bone loss; Custom-made acetabular component; Hip; Hip arthroplasty; Revision arthroplasty

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35362782     DOI: 10.1007/s00064-022-00766-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oper Orthop Traumatol        ISSN: 0934-6694            Impact factor:   1.286


  19 in total

Review 1.  [Acetabular defect reconstruction in revision surgery of the hip. Autologous, homologous or metal?].

Authors:  S Gravius; G Pagenstert; O Weber; N Kraska; H Röhrig; D C Wirtz
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 1.087

2.  Acetabular revision arthroplasty using trabecular titanium implants.

Authors:  Boris Steno; Milan Kokavec; Libor Necas
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2014-09-06       Impact factor: 3.075

3.  Cup-cage reconstruction for severe acetabular bone loss and pelvic discontinuity: Mid-term Results of a Consecutive Series of 35 Cases.

Authors:  C Hipfl; V Janz; J Löchel; C Perka; G I Wassilew
Journal:  Bone Joint J       Date:  2018-11       Impact factor: 5.082

4.  Acetabular custom-made implants for severe acetabular bone defect in revision total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Francesco Chiarlone; Andrea Zanirato; Luca Cavagnaro; Mattia Alessio-Mazzola; Lamberto Felli; Giorgio Burastero
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2020-01-20       Impact factor: 3.067

5.  Trabecular Titanium acetabular cups in hip revision surgery: mid-term clinical and radiological outcomes.

Authors:  Federico De Meo; Giorgio Cacciola; Vittorio Bellotti; Antongiolio Bruschetta; Pietro Cavaliere
Journal:  Hip Int       Date:  2018-11       Impact factor: 2.135

6.  Sagittal Stability and Implant Design Affect Patient Reported Outcomes After Total Knee Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Christopher W Jones; Hans Jacobs; Sarah Shumborski; Simon Talbot; Andrew Redgment; Roger Brighton; William L Walter
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2019-10-16       Impact factor: 4.757

7.  Mid-term results after revision total hip arthroplasty with custom-made acetabular implants in patients with Paprosky III acetabular bone loss.

Authors:  F S Fröschen; T M Randau; G T R Hischebeth; N Gravius; S Gravius; S G Walter
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2019-12-09       Impact factor: 3.067

Review 8.  Lower limb reconstruction in tumor patients using modular silver-coated megaprostheses with regard to perimegaprosthetic joint infection: a case series, including 100 patients and review of the literature.

Authors:  J Schmolders; S Koob; P Schepers; P H Pennekamp; S Gravius; D C Wirtz; R Placzek; A C Strauss
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2016-10-25       Impact factor: 3.067

9.  Total Hip Arthroplasty in 2017 - Current Concepts and Recent Advances.

Authors:  Vikas Khanduja
Journal:  Indian J Orthop       Date:  2017 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.251

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.