Options for managing severe acetabular bone loss in revision hip arthroplasty. A systematic review

被引:49
作者
Jain, Sameer [1 ]
Grogan, Richard J. [1 ]
Giannoudis, Peter V. [2 ]
机构
[1] Bradford Royal Infirm, Dept Trauma & Orthopaed Surg, Bradford BD9 6RJ, Yorks, England
[2] Leeds Gen Infirm, Acad Dept Orthopaed Surg, Leeds, Yorks, England
关键词
Revision; Arthroplasty; Severe bone loss; Jumbo cup; Tantalum; Triflanged; ANTI-PROTRUSIO CAGE; FOLLOW-UP; REINFORCEMENT RING; PELVIC DISCONTINUITY; JUMBO CUPS; ALLOGRAFT RECONSTRUCTION; ANTIPROTRUSIO CAGE; DEFECTS; COMPONENTS; MANAGEMENT;
D O I
10.5301/hipint.5000101
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
100224 [整形外科学];
摘要
Revision hip arthroplasty in the presence of severe acetabular bone loss is challenging and requires a solid understanding of current techniques. A literature search of multiple databases applying specific criteria revealed a total of 50 articles of level IV scientific evidence comprising 2415 patients (2480 hips) managed with reinforcement devices (roof-reinforcement rings and anti-protrusio cages), custom-made triflanged acetabular components (CTACs), jumbo cups and tantalum metal (TM) systems. Overall, patients had improved postoperative hip scores for each technique. The use of reinforcement devices resulted in a mean revision rate of 8.2% and a mean complication rate of 29.21%. CTACs were associated with a revision rate of 15.9% and had a complication rate of 24.5%. Jumbo cups were revised in 8.8% of patients and had a complication rate of 18.4%. TM systems had an overall revision rate of 8.5% with complications seen in 18.5% of patients. CTACs had considerably higher revision rates compared to the other techniques. Jumbo cups and TM systems had lower complication rates compared to the use of reinforcement devices and CTACs. The most frequently occurring complications seen throughout the series were aseptic loosening, dislocation and infection.
引用
收藏
页码:109 / 122
页数:14
相关论文
共 65 条
[1]
Combined trabecular metal acetabular shell and augment for acetabular revision with substantial bone loss [J].
Abolghasemian, M. ;
Tangsataporn, S. ;
Sternheim, A. ;
Backstein, D. ;
Safir, O. ;
Gross, A. E. .
BONE & JOINT JOURNAL, 2013, 95B (02) :166-172
[2]
Characteristics of bone ingrowth and interface mechanics of a new porous tantalum biomaterial [J].
Bobyn, JD ;
Stackpool, GJ ;
Hacking, SA ;
Tanzer, M ;
Krygier, JJ .
JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-BRITISH VOLUME, 1999, 81B (05) :907-914
[3]
Bobyn JD, 1999, ORTHOPEDICS, V22, P810
[4]
Acetabular revision with allograft bone -: 103 revisions with 3 reconstruction alternatives, followed for 0.3-13 years [J].
Böhm, P ;
Banzhaf, S .
ACTA ORTHOPAEDICA SCANDINAVICA, 1999, 70 (03) :240-249
[5]
Acetabular revision with the contour antiprotrusio cage - 2-to 5-year followup [J].
Bostrom, Mathias P. ;
Lehman, Andrew P. ;
Buly, Robert L. ;
Lyman, Stephen ;
Nestor, Bryan J. .
CLINICAL ORTHOPAEDICS AND RELATED RESEARCH, 2006, (453) :188-194
[6]
High Failure Rate with the GAP II Ring and Impacted Allograft Bone in Severe Acetabular Defects [J].
Buttaro, Martin A. ;
Munoz de la Rosa, Diego ;
Comba, Fernando ;
Piccaluga, Francisco .
CLINICAL ORTHOPAEDICS AND RELATED RESEARCH, 2012, 470 (11) :3148-3155
[7]
Christie MJ, 2001, CLIN ORTHOP RELAT R, P216
[8]
Cook S D, 1988, J Arthroplasty, V3, P249
[9]
DANTONIO JA, 1989, CLIN ORTHOP RELAT R, P126
[10]
Trabecular Metal Used for Major Bone Loss in Acetabular Hip Revision [J].
Davies, Jonah Hebert ;
Laflamme, G. Yves ;
Delisle, Josee ;
Fernandes, Julio .
JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY, 2011, 26 (08) :1245-1250