ACETABULAR REVISION WITH THE BURCH-SCHNIEDER ANTIPROTRUSIO CAGE AND CANCELLOUS ALLOGRAFT BONE

被引:104
作者
PETERS, CL
CURTAIN, M
SAMUELSON, KM
机构
[1] Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Utah School of Medicine
[2] LDS Hospital, Salt Lake City, Utah
关键词
ACETABULAR REVISION; ANTIPROTRUSIO CAGE; ALLOGRAFT BONE; ACETABULAR DEFICIENCY; MIGRATION; HIP CENTER;
D O I
10.1016/S0883-5403(05)80179-2
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
摘要
A retrospective review of 25 patients who underwent 28 acetabular revisions with the Burch-Schnieder antiprotrusio cage (Protek, Berne, Switzerland) and cancellous allograft bone was performed. Follow-up periods averaged 33 months. Patients had averaged 2.1 prior operations per hip. Twenty-two hips had American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons type III (combined segmental and cavitary bone loss) acetabular deficiency. Five hips had type II (cavitary bone loss) and one hip had type I (segmental bone loss) acetabular deficiency. After surgery, 80% of the patients had mild or no pain and 80% functioned as at least a community ambulator. Radiographic analysis included a detailed study of implant migration and the degree to which the hip center and bone stock were restored. Significant component migration was documented in 14% of the acetabular reconstructions. The hip center was improved from a preoperative side-to-side difference of 12.5 mm to 4.9 mm at final evaluation (P = .01). Average medial wall bone stock was improved from 1.9 mm before surgery to 10.1 mm postrevision (P < .01). No patients required revision of the antiprotrusio cage for problems related to the acetabular reconstruction. For failed acetabular components associated with moderate to massive bone loss, the antiprotrusio cage reliably reconstituted the hip joint center and acetabular bone stock. The short-term incidence of mechanical loosening parallels that of previously reported acetabular reconstruction techniques.
引用
收藏
页码:307 / 312
页数:6
相关论文
共 25 条
[1]  
Samuelson KM, Freeman MAR, Levack B, Et al., Homograft bone in revision acetabular arthroplasty: a clinical and radiographic study, J Bone Joint Surg, 70 B, (1988)
[2]  
Amstutz HC, Ma SM, Jinnah RH, Mai L, Revision of aseptic loose total hip arthroplasties, Clin Orthop, 70, (1982)
[3]  
Callaghan JJ, Salvati EA, Pellici PM, Et al., Results of revision for mechanical failure after cemented total hip replacement, 1979 to 1982: a two to five year follow-up, J Bone Joint Surg, 67 A, (1985)
[4]  
Hungerford DS, Jones LC, The rationale of cementless revision of cemented arthroplasty failures, Clin Orthop, 235, (1988)
[5]  
Pellicci PM, Et al., Revision total hip arthroplasty, Clin Orthop, 170, (1982)
[6]  
Pellicci PM, Salvati EA, Robinson HJ, Mechanical failures in total hip replacement requiring reoperation, J Bone Joint Surg, 61 A, (1979)
[7]  
Ritter MA, Faris PM, Keating M, Brugo G, Influential factors in cemented acetabular cup loosening, J Arthroplasty, 7, (1992)
[8]  
Wilson MG, Nikpost N, Aliabudi P, Et al., The fate of acetabular allografts after bipolar revision arthroplasty of the hip, J Bone Joint Surg, 71 A, (1989)
[9]  
Harris WH, Crothers O, Oh I, Total hip replacement at femoral head bone-grafting for severe acetabular deficiency in adults, J Bone Joint Surg, 59 A, (1977)
[10]  
Jasty M, Harris WH, Total hip reconstruction using frozen femoral head allografts in patients with acetabular bone loss, Orthop Clin North Am, 18, (1987)