Dual-mobility cups in revision acetabular reconstructions: Short-term outcomes in high-risk patients for instability

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of dual-mobility (DM) cup systems for revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) in patients who had high risk for instability.MethodsWe prospectively followed up 34 hips of 30 patients (27 females, 3 males; mean age: 66.1 (range: 33 to 89) years) who underwent rTHA with DM cups for aseptic loosening in 23 hips, infection treatment as second or single stage in nine hips, and instability in two hips. Clinical functions of the patients were evaluated using the Harris Hip Score (HHS), and radiological migration or loosening of the DM cups were recorded. The survival of the components was calculated with the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and failure was defined as any dislocation of the polyethylene (PE) insert, intraprosthetic dislocation (IPD), aseptic loosening of any component or total hip system revision due to any reason.ResultsThe mean duration of follow-up was 3.52 (range: 2.05 to 6.26) years. There was one dislocation of PE insert (2.9%), which was treated with closed reduction. There were two (5.8%) re-revisions for cemented DM cup due to migration. There was one PE insert and head change due to subacute infection. The mean HHS increased from 42.8 ± 6.7 (range: 34 to 60) points preoperatively to 87.3 ± 5.8 (range: 75 to 98) points postoperatively. The cumulative survival rate of the DM cup system was 91.2% (95% CI: 81.6–100%) with any revision, 94.1% (95% CI: 86.2–100%) with aseptic loosening and %97.1 (%95 CI: 91.4–100%) with dislocation as the end point at 3.5 years.ConclusionDual-mobility cups may provide good stability and represent a good option for revision acetabular reconstruction in patients who have high risk for instability.Level of evidenceLevel IV, therapeutic study.     

A Long-Term Survivorship Comparison Between Cemented and Uncemented Cups With Shelf Grafts in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty After Dysplasia

Long-term outcomes of cemented and uncemented cups were compared in patients with hip dysplasia who had undergone revision hip arthroplasty. Patients had uncontained superolateral acetabular defects reconstructed with a structural allograft. This retrospective study compared 18 cemented acetabular cups to 27 uncemented acetabular cups. Average follow-up was 216 months (range, 96-312). Nineteen acetabular cups (42%) failed due to loosening and were revised. The 10- and 20-year cup survival was 88% and 76% in the uncemented group and 67% and 36% in the cemented group. Log rank analysis showed this difference to be significant (P = .0077). Uncemented acetabular cups performed significantly better than cemented cups.     

Acetabular reconstruction with impaction bone-grafting and a cemented cup in patients younger than fifty years old: a concise follow-up, at twenty to twenty-eight years, of a previous report

In a previous report, we presented our results of forty-two acetabular reconstructions, performed with use of impaction bone-grafting and a cemented polyethylene cup, in thirty-seven patients who were younger than fifty years and had a minimum of fifteen years of follow-up. The present update study shows the results after twenty to twenty-eight years. Eight additional cups had to be revised--four because of aseptic loosening, three because of wear, and one during a revision of the stem. Three additional cups were considered loose on radiographs. Survivorship of the acetabular reconstructions, with an end point of revision for any reason, was 73% after twenty years and 52% after twenty-five years. With revision for aseptic loosening as the end point, survival was 85% after twenty years and 77% after twenty-five years; for signs of loosening on radiographs, survival was 71% at twenty years and 62% at twenty-five years. In conclusion, our previous results have declined but the technique of using impacted morselized bone graft and a cemented cup is useful for the purpose of restoring bone stock in young patients whose acetabular defects require primary or revision total hip arthroplasty.     

Acetabular reconstruction with bone impaction grafting and a cemented cup: 20 years' experience.

Acetabular bone stock loss compromises the outcome in primary and revision total hip arthroplasty. In 1979, a biologic method was introduced with tightly impacted cancellous allografts in combination with a cemented polyethylene cup for acetabular reconstruction. With this technique, it is possible to replace the loss of bone and to repair normal hip mechanics and hip function with a standard implant. Based on the authors' 20 years experience, a review of the long-term data is presented in primary total hip arthroplasty with preexisting acetabular bone stock loss, primary total hip arthroplasty in rheumatoid arthritis, patients who had bone impaction when younger than 50 years, and in acetabular revisions. The survival rate with revision of the cup for aseptic loosening as the end point was 94% at 10 to 17 years, 90% at 10 to 18 years, 91% at 10 to 17 years, and 92% at 10 to 15 years. From biopsy specimens from humans and histologic data in animal experiments the incorporation of these impacted bone chips was proven. The acetabular bone impaction technique using large morselized bone chips (range, 0.7-1 cm) and a cemented cup is a reliable technique with favorable long-term outcome.     

Revision of failed acetabular cups with extensive structural allografts

AIM: Structural allografts are used with encouraging results for revision of failed total hip arthroplasty and in the surgery of bone tumours. The aim of the present study is to describe the clinical and radiological results achieved with structural allografts in revision of a total hip arthroplasty. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 15 patients (12 female and 3 male patients) were revised with an acetabular defect situation of type 3 A or 3 B according to the Paprosky classification. Five fresh-frozen acetabula, nine distal femora and one proximal tibia were used for acetabular reconstruction. The rigid graft fixation was performed with 2 > or = AO screws. In one case a cemented acetabular ring was implanted, four cementless cups and ten cemented polyethylene acetabular components were used. The mean follow-up was 7.9 years (1.6-11.0 years). RESULTS: A stable osseointegration of fifteen transplanted structural allografts was achieved in thirteen cases. Two allografts (one aseptic loosening, one deep infection) failed to osseointegrate. In one case the migration of a cementless cup was registered. Revision surgery of this female patient was performed successfully with a cemented reconstruction ring. The mean Harris hip score at the latest follow-up was 81.4 points (70-99 points). CONCLUSION: For reconstruction of acetabular bone stock and restoration of the bone anatomy structural allografts can be recommended. The use of cementless cups in combination with structural grafts is to be evaluated as critical.     

Dual Mobility Cups in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: Efficient Strategy to Decrease Dislocation Risk

BackgroundRevision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) is a challenging surgery with a higher rate of complications than primary arthroplasty, particularly instability and aseptic loosening. The purpose of this study is to compare dual mobility cup (DMC) and standard mobility cup (SMC) in all rTHAs performed at our institution over a decade with a 1 year minimum follow-up.MethodsTwo hundred ninety-five rTHAs (acetabular only and bipolar revisions) between 2006 and 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. These were divided into those with a DMC (184 revisions) or SMC (111 revisions). Dislocation and complications requiring re-revision were reported.ResultsThe rTHA mean age was 69 years ± 13.9 (19-92) and the mean follow-up was 2.3 years. Dislocation risk was statistically lower (P = .01) with a DMC (3.8%; 7/184) than with an SMC (13.5%; 15/111). DMC required re-rTHA in 24/184 (13%) for any reason compared to SMC in 19/111 (17.1%) (P = .34). There was no significant difference in early aseptic loosening (P = .28) between the 2 groups. For young patients (≤55 years), results were similar with a lower dislocation rate in the DMC group (P = .24) and no increased risk of early aseptic loosening (P = .49).ConclusionThis study demonstrates that for all rTHA indications DMC compared to SMC has a significantly decreased risk of postoperative dislocation without risk of early aseptic loosening at medium term follow-up. The use of DMC in rTHA is an important consideration particularly with the predicted increased incidence of both primary and revision THA globally.     

Contemporary Porous Titanium Acetabular Components for Total Hip Arthroplasty After Pelvic Radiation

BackgroundPatients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) following pelvic radiation have historically had poor survivorship free of aseptic acetabular component loosening. However, several series have reported improved results with tantalum acetabular components. The purpose of this study is to assess implant survivorship, radiographic results, and clinical outcomes of contemporary, porous titanium acetabular components in the setting of prior pelvic radiation.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed 33 patients (38 hips) with prior pelvic radiation between 2006 and 2016 who underwent primary THA. The mean overall pelvic radiation dose was 6300 cGy with a mean latency period to THA of 5 years. The most common acetabular component was Pinnacle (DePuy Synthes) in 76%. Eight-seven percent of cups were fixed with screws. The mean age at primary THA was 74 years, 76% were male, and the mean body mass index was 30 kg/m². Mean follow-up was 5 years.ResultsThe 10-year survivorship free of revision for aseptic loosening, free of any revision, and free of any reoperation were 100%, 89%, and 89%, respectively, when accounting for death as a competing risk. There were 3 revisions; one each for taper corrosion, recurrent dislocation, and infection. Radiographically, all cups had evidence of osteointegration and none had radiographic evidence of loosening. The mean Harris Hip Score improved from 50 to 84 postoperatively (P < .0001).ConclusionContemporary porous titanium acetabular components with supplemental screws provided excellent implant fixation in patients with prior therapeutic pelvic radiation. At 10 years, 100% of these components were free of revision for aseptic loosening and 100% were radiographically well-fixed.Level of EvidenceLevel IV, Therapeutic.     

Survivorship and Risk Factors for Re-Revision after Aseptic Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty in Patients Aged ≤55 Years

BackgroundThere is a relative paucity of literature on the outcomes after revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) in young patients. This study reports the survivorship and risk factors for re-revision in patients aged ≤55 years.MethodsWe identified 354 patients undergoing aseptic nononcologic rTHA at mean follow-up of 5 years after revision, with mean age of 48 years, body mass index of 28 kg/m², and 64% female. Thirty-five (10%) patients underwent at least 1 previous rTHA. The main indications for rTHA included wear/osteolysis (21%), adverse local tissue reaction (21%), recurrent instability (20%), acetabular loosening (16%), and femoral loosening (7%); and included acetabular component-only rTHA in 149 patients (42%), femoral component-only rTHA in 46 patients (13%), both component rTHA in 44 patients (12%), and head/liner exchanges in patients 115 (33%). The Kaplan-Meier method was used to measure survivorship free from re-revision THA, and multivariate regression was used to identify risk factors for re-revision THA.ResultsSixty-two patients (18%) underwent re-revision THA at the mean time of 2.5 years, most commonly for instability (37%), aseptic loosening (27%), and prosthetic joint infection (15%). The rTHA survivorship from all-cause re-revision and reoperation was 83% and 79% at 5 years, respectively. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that patients undergoing femoral component only (hazard ratio 4.8, P = .014) and head/liner exchange rTHA (hazard ratio 2.5, P = .022) as risk factors for re-revision THA.ConclusionAbout 1 in 5 patients aged ≤55 years undergoing rTHA required re-revision THA at 5 years, most commonly for instability. The highest risk group included patients undergoing head/liner exchanges and isolated femoral component revisions.     

What Are the Long-term Results of Cemented Revision THA with Use of Both Acetabular and Femoral Impaction Bone Grafting in Patients Younger Than 55 Years?

BackgroundThe increasing number of THAs in younger patients will inevitably result in an increase of revision procedures. However, there is little evidence about the outcome of revision procedures in this patient group. Therefore, we updated a previous study conducted 5 years ago about the outcome of revision procedures in patients younger than 55 years.Questions/purposesWe sought to provide a concise update on the previously reported (1) long-term failure rate as defined by repeat revision, (2) clinical outcome as defined by the Oxford Hip score and the Harris Hip score, and (3) radiographic outcome of cemented revision THA performed with impaction bone grafting on both the acetabular and femoral sides in one surgery in patients younger than 55 years old.MethodsBetween 1991 and 2007, we performed 86 complete THA revisions in patients younger than 55 years. In 38% (33 of 86) of revisions, bone impaction grafting was used on both the acetabular and femoral side because of acetabular and femoral bone stock loss. Mean age at time of revision was 46 ± 8 years. No patient was lost to follow-up, but six patients died during follow-up, including three since 2015. Still, the hips of all 33 patients were included in analysis at a mean of 17 ± 5 years. Failure was calculated using competing risk analysis. For clinical outcome, we assessed the Harris Hip score and the Oxford Hip score from our longitudinally maintained institutional database. Radiographic analysis was performed to evaluate radiographic loosening, defined as radiolucencies ≥ 2 mm in all zones or ≥ 5 mm migration for both components. The acetabular component was also considered loose with tilting ≥ 5°ResultsThe 15-year failure rate of revision THA was 27% (95% CI 13 to 44) for re-revision of any component for any reason and 10% (95% CI 3 to 25) for re-revision of any component for aseptic loosening. The mean Harris Hip score increased from 55 ± 18 preoperatively to 74 ± 22 at latest follow-up. Eight cups were considered radiographically loose, seven of which were re-revised. No stems were considered radiographically loose. Failure rate with endpoint radiographic loosening at 15 years was 23% (95% CI 10 to 39).ConclusionWe found that impaction bone grafting with a cemented cup and a cemented stem is a valuable biological revision technique that results in a stable and durable solution, after one or even multiple previous revision THAs. Although current implants may prove sufficient in most cases, they do not promote bone stock preservation. We believe that in young patients with bone stock loss, impaction bone grafting can be used as long as the defect can be contained adequately with a metal mesh and viable bone bed is available for revascularization.Level of EvidenceLevel IV, therapeutic study.     

Modular acetabular reconstructive cup in acetabular revision total hip arthroplasty at a minimum ten year follow-up

Purpose

Modular acetabular reconstructive cups have been introduced in an attempt to offer initial rigid fixation by iliac lag screws and ischial pegs, to support bone grafts with a flanged metal socket, and to restore original hip center in acetabular revision. The purpose of this study was to clarify minimum ten year follow-up results of this cup system with morsellised allografts in revision cases.

Methods

We retrospectively investigated 54 acetabular revisions at a mean of 11 years (range, ten to 14 years). The indications were Paprosky’s type 2B (eight hip), 2C (eight hips), 3A (23 hips), 3B (nine hips), and 4 (six hips).

Results

Using aseptic loosening as the endpoints, the survival rate was 89.3 % (95 % CI 81–98). Radiographically, one type 3A hip, three type 3B hips and one type 4 hip showed aseptic loosening while no type 2 hips or no cemented cups showed loosening.

Conclusions

The modular reconstructive cups for acetabular revision showed bone stock restoration and stable implantation.     

Reconstruction of the rotation center of the hip after oblong cups in revision total hip arthroplasty

Background

The preoperative bone defect and the reconstruction of the center of rotation of the hip are critical in acetabular revision surgery. Uncemented oblong cups are employed in order to manage these issues. We analyzed the clinical results and rates of revision of two different uncemented oblong cups, the reconstruction of the center of rotation of the hip, as well as the rate of radiological loosening and possible risk factors.

Materials and methods

Forty-five patients (46 hips) underwent acetabular revision surgery using two different uncemented oblong cups. We assessed the clinical results and the survival rate for revision and aseptic loosening. Intraoperative bone loss was classified according to Paprosky, and acetabular reconstruction was assessed according to Ranawat. The mean follow-up was 7.2 years (range 4–11 years).

Results

There were four re-revisions (three due to aseptic loosening); the survival rate for re-revision due to aseptic loosening was 60.1 % at seven years. The mean distance between the center of the femoral head prosthesis and the approximate center of the femoral head improved from 21.5 to 10.2 mm. Thirteen cups showed radiological loosening; the survival rate for radiological loosening at seven years was 40.54 %. A smaller postoperative horizontal distance was correlated with cup loosening.

Conclusions

Although optimal acetabular reconstruction can be achieved by using oblong uncemented cups in revision hip surgery, the clinical and radiological results are not encouraging. Excessive medialization of the cup may increase the rate of loosening.     

Revision of failed acetabular components utilizing a cementless oblong cup: an average 9-year follow-up study

Introduction  Failure of acetabular components often leads to bone loss with extensive elongated defects in the surrounding bone. In these cases, reconstruction is challenging and stable fixation of the revision implant difficult. The use of an oblong cup has been described as an option for acetabular reconstruction in such revisions. We report the first long-term results obtained with this implant to date. Materials and methods  Fifty-six longitudinal oblong revision cups (LOR™) were evaluated clinically and radiologically after a follow-up of 8–12 years (average 9 years). The defects treated with the LOR™ cup ranged from Paprosky type 1–3. Allogenic cancellous bone chips were additionally used in 31 reconstructions to fill cavitary defects. Results  Based on radiological criteria, 50 acetabular implants underwent osseointegration without any definitive signs of loosening; 2 consistently exhibited zonal radiolucent lines that were always smaller than 2 mm, 1 migrated by around 3 mm. None of these cases exhibited any clinical symptoms. In 11 cases where acetabular defects manifested postoperatively, 8 were remodeled completely and 3 partially at final follow-up. Three revision implants migrated farther than 5 mm and had to be revised before 32-month follow-up. In addition, 1 septic implant failure occurred. After an average follow-up of 9 years, 93% of the investigated implants remained in situ without further revision and 95% without aseptic implant failure. Conclusion  This 12-year clinical study demonstrates that the LOR™ cup offers a successful concept for the revision of failed acetabular components that also promotes the biological reconstruction of bony defects. Compared with other methods with similarly long follow-ups, our long-term results prove this procedure has a very low rate of revision and aseptic implant failure.     

Highly Porous Titanium Acetabular Components in Primary and Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review

BackgroundA number of papers have been published reporting on the clinical performance of highly porous coated titanium acetabular cups in primary and revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). However, no systematic review of the literature has been published to date.MethodsThe US National Library of Medicine (PubMed/MEDLINE), Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were queried for publications utilizing the following keywords: “tritanium” OR “highly-porous” AND “titanium” OR “acetabular” AND “trabecular” AND “titanium”.ResultsOverall, 16 studies were included in this review (11,366 cases; 60% females, 2-7 years mean follow-up). The overall survival rate of highly porous titanium acetabular components in primary cases was 99.3% (10,811 of 10,886 cases), whereas the rate of aseptic loosening was 0.1%. The overall survival rate of the highly porous titanium acetabular components in revision THA cases was 93.5% (449 of 480 cases), whereas the rate of aseptic loosening was 2.1%.ConclusionThere was moderate quality evidence to show that the use of highly porous titanium acetabular components in primary and revision THA cases is associated with satisfactory clinical outcomes in the short- and medium-term, without showing any evidence of cup migration or radiolucency. Taking into consideration that there is no evidence yet regarding the long-term survivorship of these components, we feel that further research of higher quality is required to generate more evidence-based conclusions regarding the longevity of highly porous titanium acetabular implants compared with conventional titanium counterparts.     

Use of Jumbo Cups for Revision of Acetabulae With Large Bony Defects

Several methods of treatment are available for acetabular revision associated with bone loss. Jumbo cups (minimum diameter of 62 mm in women, 66 mm in men, or 10 mm larger than the normal contralateral acetabulum) are often useful for large defects. The purpose of this study is to report a large jumbo cup series with an average 10-year follow-up. A total of 196 jumbo cups in 186 patients with a minimum of 2-year follow-up were available for review. Harris hip score improved from 44 preoperatively to 72 postoperatively. Survivorship was 98% at 4 years and 96% at 16 years. Five revisions and two resection arthroplasties were performed for failure. In conclusion, porous jumbo cup acetabular revision with supplemental screw fixation provides good to excellent intermediate- and long-term outcomes.     

Does Revision of an Acetabular Shell With Insertion of an Uncemented Constrained Liner Confer Benefit Over Cementing Into a Well-Ingrown Shell?

BackgroundDuring revision total hip arthroplasty (THA), a constrained acetabular liner (CAL) may be inserted to enhance hip stability. It is unclear, however, whether cementation of a CAL into a retained cup offers an advantage compared to revision of the acetabular cup and insertion of an uncemented CAL. The purpose of our study was to compare outcomes and survivorship between the 2 methods.MethodsWe identified a total of 177 patients who underwent revision THA with a specific CAL at our center between July 2004 and May 2019 (114 cup revisions and insertion of an uncemented CAL, 63 cementations of a CAL into a retained cup). Kaplan-Meier (KM) survival analysis was performed for implant survival free from aseptic failure of the CAL for both cohorts.ResultsThe average follow-up time was 7.2 and 7.02 years for the cemented and uncemented cohort, respectively (P = .55). Five patients (7.93%) in the cemented CAL group experienced failure of the CAL, whereas 10 patients (8.77%) in the uncemented CAL cohort experienced failure (P = .21). Kaplan-Meier (KM) survival analysis demonstrated comparable survivorship at 10 years (P = .055).ConclusionThe results of our study suggest comparable survivorship between cementing a CAL into a retained cup and inserting an uncemented CAL in a revised acetabular cup. As a result of these findings along with the benefits associated with cementing a CAL, we encourage surgeons to readily consider this option in the management of recurrent instability.     

Standard Versus Custom-Made Acetabular Implants in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

BackgroundToday, various options are used for the reconstruction of acetabular bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty (RTHA). The aim of the study was to compare the outcomes of using standard acetabular implants (SAIs) and custom-made acetabular implants (CMAIs) in RTHA in cases with extensive acetabular bone loss.MethodsThis was a comparative analysis of the results of 106 operations of RTHA performed during the period from January 2013 to December 2019. In 61 cases (57.5%), CMAIs were used. In 45 cases (42.5%), SAIs were implanted.ResultsThe incidence of aseptic loosening of the acetabular component after RTHA in uncontained loss of bone stock of the acetabulum (type III-IV as per the Gross and Saleh classification) using the CMAI was less than that using the SAI (2.4% and 10.0%, respectively). The most significant differences in aseptic loosening rates were noted after implantation of the CMAI and SAI in pelvic discontinuity with uncontained bone defect (0% and 60.0%, respectively; P < .001).ConclusionThe ideal indications for the use of the CMAI are uncontained defects and pelvic discontinuity with uncontained loss of bone stock (types III-V Gross and Saleh classification). Treatment of these defects with the SAI leads to a higher incidence of aseptic loosening requiring re-revisions. Further observation is required to assess the effectiveness of using the CMAI and SAI in the long-term follow-up period.     

Comparable Results With Porous Metal Augments in Combination With Either Cemented or Uncemented Cups in Revision Hip Arthroplasty: An Analysis of One Hundred Forty-Seven Revisions at a Mean of Five Years

Background

Porous metal augments have been used successfully for management of large acetabular defects during revision hip arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to retrospectively review and compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of porous metal augments in cemented and uncemented acetabular revisions, all performed at the same institution.

Early results of revision acetabular cup using antiprotrusio reconstruction rings and allografts

Background:Hip arthroplasty is one of the most frequently performed orthopedic procedures with high scores of success while its most common complication is aseptic loosening of the acetabular component, which may result from host bone loss or even from pelvis discontinuity. The purpose of the study was to evaluate results in patients after revision acetabular arthroplasty with reconstruction rings and allografts.Results:The mean followup period of the patients was 7.2 years (range 3-19 years). A Kaplan–Meier analysis showed that a 3- and 10 year survival rate was 92.8% and 84.8% respectively, using further revision for any reason of the acetabular device as an end point. Eight patients revealed implant related complications. Four patients presented with ring loosening, one with a loose acetabular polyethylene cup, two hips demonstrated recurrent dislocations and one patient was with deep infection. Regarding the remaining 61 patients without re-revision surgery, the mean Harris hip score improved from 30.5 to 73.8 points.Conclusion:A modified, antiprotrusion cage provides an acceptable survival rate and radiological results, but complications could still be expected. It seems that the observed massive bone loss with pelvic discontinuity and an insufficient fixation of the cage to the ischium may result in implant loosening. Stable fixation of the ischial ring flange with screws is an essential condition to expect a good outcome.