颗粒打压植骨联合金属钛网应用于中度髋臼缺损髋翻修的早期研究

目的 分析颗粒松质骨打压植骨联合金属钛网应用于伴有中度髋臼骨缺损的全髋关节翻修术的早期临床效果,并比较该方法用于不同类型骨缺损的效果差异。方法 回顾性分析我院2008年7月至2015年3月采用金属钛网联合颗粒骨打压植骨技术行髋臼骨缺损翻修重建的19例（19髋）病人的临床资料,其中男8例,女11例。骨缺损采用Paprosky分型：ⅡB型7例,ⅡC型11例,ⅢA型1例。通过术后定期复查的髋部X线片评估术后的移植骨整合情况、假体稳定性及髋关节旋转中心的位置;分析比较病人手术前后各时间点的改良髋关节Harris评分（hip Harris score, HHS）及SF-36生活质量评分;采用Kaplan-Meier法对假体进行生存分析;比较ⅡB和ⅡC型骨缺损病人在上述指标方面的差异。结果 19例病人随访10~76个月,平均随访时间为4.7年。19例病人的移植骨状况良好,和宿主骨不同程度整合;1例病人因假体周围感染致假体松动行再次翻修;所有病人髋臼旋转中心均得到了良好重建;HHS评分由术前的（47.51±5.91）分提高至末次随访时的（90.30±5.53）分,差异有统计学意义（t=17.005,P=0.010）;SF-36生活质量评分术后也得到了显著提高;术后4.7年以再次翻修为研究终点的假体生存率为94.7%。ⅡB和ⅡC型骨缺损病人在上述指标的差异均无统计学意义（P均＞0.05）。结论 金属钛网联合颗粒松质骨打压植骨用于伴有骨缺损的髋关节翻修,早期临床效果良好,且对于Paprosky ⅡB和ⅡC型髋臼缺损的疗效相当。     

金属钛网联合颗粒骨打压植骨治疗髋臼骨缺损

目的介绍颗粒状松质骨打压植骨联合金属钛网固定的方法对人工髋关节翻修术中髋臼缺损的重建。方法应用该技术治疗23例患者,髋臼缺损分型(AAOS分类)Ⅱ型9例,Ⅲ型14例,术前髋关节功能平均评分38分(Harris评分),术后进行临床评估及X线评估。结果所有患者均使用骨水泥固定假体,术后平均随访3.9年,Harris评分平均提高39分,无1例需再次翻修,有3例患者在X线片上出现透亮带。结论打压植骨联合金属钛网固定在处理髋关节翻修术中髋臼缺损时,操作简单方便,疗效可靠。     

打压植骨联合钛网治疗髋关节翻修术中髋臼缺损疗效的中长期随访

[目的]观察打压植骨联合钛网治疗髋关节翻修术中髋臼缺损的中长期疗效。[方法]2005年1月~2008年12月间,对24例需行髋关节翻修患者采用打压植骨联合钛网重建髋臼缺损,男7例,女17例,平均年龄67岁(58~75岁),初次置换距翻修手术平均8.1年(3~16年),髋臼缺损按Paprosky分型:ⅡC型15例,ⅢA型9例,翻修均选用同种异体骨及骨水泥假体,术后及随访时进行X线评估及Harris评分。[结果]24例患者术后平均随访7.1年(5~9年),术后早期均未见感染、脱位、假体周围骨折等并发症。截止至末次随访除1例再次翻修外均未发生假体松动及再行翻修治疗。患者Harris评分由术前平均38分(12~56分)增至末次随访时的86分(81~92分)。[结论]对于Paprosky分型ⅡC及ⅢA型髋臼骨缺损,打压植骨结合钛网固定技术可获得较满意的中长期疗效。     

颗粒骨打压植骨结合非骨水泥臼固定在髋臼翻修中的应用

目的 探讨颗粒骨打压植骨结合非骨水泥臼在髋臼翻修中的临床应用.方法 应用颗粒骨打压植骨结合非骨水泥臼技术重建髋臼骨缺损10例,术中使用异体颗粒骨直径4～6 mm,髋臼假体均为生物型髋臼,上2或3枚螺钉固定,内衬均为高交联聚乙烯.结果 切口均一期愈合,无感染、脱位等并发症发生.随访9～28个月,平均19.5个月,X线片上髋臼骨床、颗粒骨及假体界面未见明显透亮带存在,原骨缺损区修复良好.Harris评分术前平均38.1分,术后平均85.5分.结论 颗粒骨打压植骨结合非骨水泥臼固定方法可有效修复髋关节翻修中髋臼AAOSⅡ、Ⅲ型骨缺损,恢复骨量,并能提供良好的早期稳定性.     

同种异体颗粒骨打压植骨联合不同类型假体在严重髋臼骨缺损翻修中的应用

目的探讨对严重髋臼骨缺损患者采用同种异体颗粒骨打压植骨联合骨水泥型或非骨水泥型假体翻修的早中期疗效。方法回顾分析2011年2月-2018年5月采用同种异体颗粒骨打压植骨联合假体翻修治疗的42例(44髋)严重髋臼骨缺损患者临床资料,其中采用骨水泥型臼杯24例(24髋)、非骨水泥型臼杯18例(20髋)。男17例,女25例;年龄22~84岁,平均62.8岁。初次人工全髋关节置换术距该次翻修术时间为2.5~12.0年,平均8.3年。翻修原因:假体无菌性松动31例(32髋),假体周围感染11例(12髋)。按照髋臼骨缺损Paprosky分型标准:ⅢA型28例(29髋),ⅢB型14例(15髋)。术前髋关节Harris评分为(22.25±10.31)分。髋关节旋转中心高度为(3.67±0.63)cm,双下肢长度差值为(3.41±0.64)cm。结果手术时间为130~245 min,平均186 min。术中出血量600~2400 mL,平均840 mL。术后引流量250~1450 mL,平均556 mL。术后1例出现切口浅表感染,其余患者切口均Ⅰ期愈合。患者均获随访,随访时间6~87个月,平均48.6个月。末次随访时Harris评分为(85.85±9.31)分,与术前比较差异有统计学意义(t=18.563,P=0.000)。影像学复查显示同种异体骨与宿主骨逐步融合,未见明显骨吸收。末次随访时,髋关节旋转中心高度为(1.01±0.21)cm,与术前比较差异有统计学意义(t=17.549,P=0.000);双下肢长度差值为(0.62±0.51)cm,与术前比较差异有统计学意义(t=14.211,P=0.000)。与术前相比,末次随访骨水泥组、非骨水泥组Harris评分明显提高,髋关节旋转中心高度下降且均在Ranawat三角内,双下肢长度差值亦减小,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05);两组髋关节旋转中心高度比较差异有统计学意义(t=2.095,P=0.042),Harris评分及双下肢长度差值比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论对于PaproskyⅢ型髋臼骨缺损患者,根据缺损程度选择同种异体颗粒骨打压植骨联合骨水泥型或非骨水泥型假体翻修,均可有效重建髋关节,并获得较好的早中期疗效。     

髋臼钛板加颗粒植骨治疗髋臼严重骨缺损

[目的]探讨髋臼钛板加颗粒植骨治疗髋臼严重骨缺损的临床效果。[方法]应用该技术治疗27例患者，髋臼骨缺损分型（AAOS分类）Ⅰ型6例，ⅡC型4例，Ⅲ型17例；术前髋关节Harris评分平均37分，术后根据临床及x线进行评估。[结果]所有患者均采用该方法重建髋臼，术后假体脱位1例，原因是重建钛板前倾过多与大粗隆发生撞击，经凿去部分粗隆骨质消除撞击因素后治愈。其余病例无并发症，平均随访3a，Harris评分平均87分。X线无1例患者的髋臼骨床、移植骨、重建钛板和聚乙烯内衬交界面出现透亮带。[结论]髋臼钛板加颗粒植骨可有效修复髋臼骨缺损，为假体提供坚强的初始固定，具有恢复髋关节旋转中心的作用。     

复杂全髋关节置换术和翻修术——髋臼打压植骨-骨水泥技术

无论是骨水泥型或非骨水泥型人工全髋关节,无菌性松动都是其植入后远期失败的主要原因,而且这一渐进性过程经常导致假体周围大量骨丢失.而如何处理假体周围骨丢失,就成为翻修手术中的关键问题.多年来,治疗骨缺损的最佳方案一直存在争议,而我们采用的同种异体打压植骨和骨水泥技术的结合是一种非常有效的方法.我们使用这种方法已经有20多年的经验,并且取得了很好的长期随访结果.     

髋臼加强环联合同种异体骨植骨在髋臼骨缺损人工髋关节翻修术中的应用

目的探讨髋臼加强环联合同种异体骨植骨在髋臼骨缺损人工髋关节翻修术中的应用效果。方法随机将48例髋臼骨缺损行人工髋关节翻修术的患者分为2组,各24例。对照组术中采用同种异体骨植骨术,观察组在对照组基础上联合使用髋臼加强环。结果随着随访时间的延长,2组髋关节功能Harris评分均随之增高。但观察组明显高于对照组,且并发症率明显低于对照组。差异均有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论髋臼加强环联合同种异体骨植骨进行髋臼骨缺损的人工髋关节翻修,术后并发症率低,效果可靠。     

全髋翻修术中髋臼骨缺损翻修重建

全髋关节置换术后髋臼失败的翻修重.是骨科医生面临的巨大的技术挑战.翻修时面对广泛的髋臼骨缺损,可能需要采用几种不同技术,尽可能使髋臼侧恢复到初次全髋关节置换术时的骨量.获得翻修假体初始稳定是翻修手术成功的关键.该文就全髋翻修术中髋臼骨缺损的分类、术前计划和翻修重建策略作一综述.     

应用特殊髋臼钢板结合植骨技术治疗全髋翻修术中髋臼骨缺损

目的 探讨髋臼钢板结合植骨治疗髋臼骨缺损的临床效果.方法 应用髋臼钢板结合植骨治疗20例髋臼骨缺损髋臼骨缺损按AAOS分型,其中Ⅰ型2例,Ⅱ型4例,Ⅲ型14例.术前髋关节Harris评分平均37.6分,术后根据临床及X线进行评估.结果 所有患者均采用该方法重建髋臼,术后髋部顽固性疼痛1例,原因可能是髋臼周缘发生异位骨化.经服用强效止痛药物1年后好转.其余病例无并发症,平均随访3年,Harris评分平均86.4分.X线片示无一例患者的髋臼骨床、移植骨、重建钛板和聚乙烯内衬交界面出现透亮带.结论 髋臼钢板结合植骨可为假体提供坚强的初始固定,具有恢复髋关节旋转中心的作用.可有效修复髋臼骨缺损.     

Favorable Early Results of Impaction Bone Grafting With Reinforcement Mesh for the Treatment of Paprosky 3B Acetabular Defects

Background

We present the early institutional experience with the use of impaction bone grafting, mesh augmentation, and cement fixation of an all-polyethylene cup for the treatment of Paprosky 3B acetabular defects during revision total hip arthroplasty.

Impaction Bone Grafting Combined with Titanium Mesh for Acetabular Bone Defects Reconstruction in Total Hip Arthroplasty Revision: A Retrospective and Mini‐Review Study

ObjectiveTo investigate the application of impaction bone grafting (IBG) combined with Ti‐alloy mesh for acetabular bone defect reconstruction in total hip arthroplasty (THA) revision and follow up the clinical outcomes and imaging findings.MethodsThe clinical and imaging data of patients who were admitted to our hospital from January 2000 to December 2020 and underwent acetabular bone defects reconstruction using IBG combined with titanium mesh were retrospectively analyzed. Preoperative and post‐revision Oxford and Harris scores, and post‐revision complications were evaluated. Radiographs were used to determine center of rotation (COR) of the hip joint, transparency line, bone graft fusion, and bone mineral density (BMD) around the hip joint.ResultsSignificant improvement was observed in both Oxford and Harris scores (P < 0.05). The radiographs taken at the last follow‐up examination showed no significant differences in the acetabulum COR, offsets, inclination angle, mean ratio of vertical value, and BMD analysis between the post‐revision side and contralateral side (P > 0.05). The follow‐up data showed restoration of the mesh implant and graft bone fusion.ConclusionsThe application of IBG combined with titanium‐alloy mesh in revision THA patients with acetabular defects was found to provide satisfactory outcomes. However, large‐scale studies are still needed to further elucidate the long‐term outcomes.     

THA Revisions Using Impaction Allografting With Mesh Is Durable for Medial but Not Lateral Acetabular Defects

Background

Most acetabular revisions are managed with cementless hemispherical or elliptical metal implants relying on bone ingrowth. Nonetheless, loss of acetabular bone stock and inability to achieve secure component fixation represent challenges in the setting of revision total hip arthroplasty. Impaction bone grafting (IBG) using allograft represents one option for treatment of this problem. However, cup migration and bone graft resorption are limitations when IBG is used for large segmental defects, and the precise role of IBG as well as the use of mesh (and the kinds of defects for which mesh does not work well) in this setting remains unknown.

Questions/purposes

We therefore evaluated patients undergoing acetabular revision surgery using IBG and a cemented cup in large bone defects to determine (1) the frequency with which the hip center could be restored in hips with Paprosky 3A and 3B defects and in hips with or without the use of metallic mesh during surgery; (2) survivorship of IBG acetabular-revision reconstructions in patients with severe Paprosky 3A and 3B defects; and (3) risk factors for failure of the reconstruction, including the use of mesh and defect severity (3A versus 3B).

Methods

Between 1997 and 2009, we performed 226 acetabular revisions using IBG. During that time, indications for using IBG in this setting included Paprosky 3A and 3B defects without pelvic discontinuity. Of these, 204 (90.2%) were available for followup at a minimum of 5 years (mean, 10 years; range, 5–17 years). There were 100 hips with an intraoperative bone defect of Paprosky 3A and 104 with a 3B. Medial or rim acetabular uncontained defects were treated with medial and/or lateral metallic mesh in 142 hips. We determined the postoperative radiological cup position and acetabular reconstruction of the hip center according to Ranawat in both groups. We assessed the appearance of cup loosening and the possible risk factors with regression analysis.

Results

Mean postoperative acetabular abduction angle and vertical, horizontal, and hip rotation center distances improved (p < 0.001 in all parameters). Nine hips showed radiological loosening in the group with bone defect 3A and 16 in Group 3B. The survival rate for loosening at 15 years was 83% (95% confidence interval [CI], 71%–95%) for Group 3A and 73% (95% CI, 60%–84%) for Group 3B (p = 0.04). The survivorship for loosening when using mesh or not at 15 years was: no mesh 89% (95% CI, 74%–99%), medial mesh 85% (95% CI, 72%–97%), lateral mesh 80% (95% CI, 67%–91%), and medial and lateral meshes 54% (95% CI, 31%–76%) (p = 0.008). After controlling the most relevant confounding variables we found that the most important factor associated with loosening was lateral mesh use (p = 0.008; hazard ratio, 2.942; 95% CI, 1.328–6.516).

Conclusions

IBG provides an improvement in reconstruction of the hip rotation center in acetabular revision surgery. Although results are good for contained or medial large defects, hips with a rim or lateral segmental defect may need other options for reconstruction of these challenging surgeries.

Level of Evidence

Level III, therapeutic study.     

Mid‐ to Long‐term Follow‐up of Severe Acetabular Bone Defect after Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Using Impaction Bone Grafting and Metal Mesh

ObjectiveIn revision total hip arthroplasty (THA), reconstruction of severe acetabular bone defect continues to be problematic for orthopedic surgeons. This study reports the mid‐ to long‐term survivorship, radiological outcomes, and complications of impaction bone grafting (IBG) and metal mesh with a cemented acetabular component in the reconstruction of severe acetabular bone defects in revision THA.MethodsThis retrospective consecutive study included 26 patients (29 hips: type II B, four; type II C, three; type III A, 10; and type III B, 12) who underwent revision THA, which was performed using IBG and metal mesh, between 2007 and 2014 in our institution. All patients were followed up regularly for clinical and radiographical assessments. Migration and loosening of prosthesis graft integration and complications were observed and analyzed. Survival analysis was performed using a Kaplan–Meier survival analysis.ResultsAt the time of revision, 75.9% of the hips (22 hips) were classified as type III bone defects. The average follow‐up period was 9.4 ± 2.8 (range, 2.4–14.0) years. Of the 29 hips, four hips (13.8%) were assessed as clinical failures; at the last follow‐up, two had undergone re‐revision THA, and two had not been scheduled for re‐revision THA despite radiological failure of the acetabular component. Among them, three clinical failures (10.3%) were due to aseptic loosening, and one (3.4%) was due to infection. Radiographic evaluation showed bone graft integration in all hips during the follow‐up. The Kaplan–Meier survivorship analysis revealed an acetabular reconstruction survival rate of 86.5% (95% confidence interval, 61.4%–95.7%) at 10 years.ConclusionIBG and metal mesh with a cemented acetabular component for revision THA is an effective technique for treating severe acetabular bone defects, with effective mid‐ to long‐term outcomes due to the solid reconstruction of the acetabular bone defect and restoration of the hip rotation center.     

Impaction Bone Grafting with Low Dose Irradiated Freeze‐Dried Allograft Bone for Acetabular Reconstruction

ObjectiveReconstruction of acetabular defects has been extremely challenging in both primary and revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). Impaction bone grafting (IBG) can restore the acetabulum bone mass and anatomically reconstruct the acetabulum. Our study aimed to report the short and medium‐term clinical and radiographic outcomes of IBG for acetabular reconstruction in the cemented THA in the Chinese population.MethodsThis was a single‐center retrospective review enrolling 57 patients between May 2013 and July 2019. The patients with acetabular defects were treated with IBG, using low dose irradiated freeze‐dried allograft bone with or without autograft bone, in the cemented THA performed by one senior surgeon. Harris hip score (HHS), standard pelvis anterior–posterior radiograph and lateral hip radiograph were obtained before operation and at 1 week, 3 months, 12 months, and yearly. Graft osteointegration was evaluated by Oswestry''s criteria, and complication was documented at the last follow‐up. Independent sample ANOVA test and Pearson chi‐square tests are used for statistical analysis.ResultsThere were 61 hips in 57 patients. The average follow‐up time was 35.59 months (5–77 months). According to AAOS classification, a total of 18 hips were identified as segmental bone deficiency (type I), with 21 and 22 hips for cavitary bone deficiency (type II) and the combined bone deficiency (type III), respectively. The average HHS was improved from 44.49 (range: 32–58) preoperatively to 86.98 (range: 78–93) postoperatively. Graft osteointegration was satisfactory (Oswestry score ≥2) in all patients. No dislocation occurred in the 57 patients (61 hips) during follow‐up. Although one cup migrated, no revision, re‐revision, radiographic loosening, graft bone lysis, or postoperative complications were detected at the final follow‐up.ConclusionsIBG with low‐dose irradiated freeze‐dried allograft bone in acetabular bone defect reconstruction is a reliable technique for restoring acetabular bone defects in THA.     

A 2- to 16-Year Clinical Follow-Up of Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Using a New Acetabular Implant Combined With Impacted Bone Allografts and a Cemented Cup

Background

Treatment of acetabular bone loss with impaction bone grafting (IBG) at revision total hip arthroplasty is highly dependent on mechanical stability and graft compression for clinical success. Here, we describe a new technique to further compress and stabilize the acetabular graft bed with a thin, perforated titanium shell.

Cup‐Cage Solution for Massive Acetabular Defects: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

Our systematic review compiled multiple studies and evaluated survivorship and clinical outcomes of cup‐cage construct usage in the management of massive acetabular bone defects. This systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Various combinations of “acetabular”, “pelvis”, “cup cage” and their corresponding synonyms were used to search relevant articles in the Cochrane, EMBASE, and PubMed databases. Basic information of the functional scores, implant revision rate, and complication rate were selected as outcomes for analysis. Finally, a total of 11 articles published between 1999 and 2019 were selected, which include 232 patients with an average age of 68.5 years (range, 30–90). The mean follow‐up period was 48.85 months (range, 1–140). Our study shows that the cup‐cage construct has a good clinical outcome with a low revision rate and a low complication rate. Improved clinical outcomes of cup‐cage constructs were seen with a revision rate of 8% and an all‐cause complication rate of 20%. The most commonly reported complication was dislocation, followed by aseptic loosening, infection, and nerve injuries. In summary, it is a promising method for managing large acetabular bone defects in total hip revision.     

Midterm Outcomes After Reconstruction of Superolateral Acetabular Defects Using Flying Buttress Porous Tantalum Augments During Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

BackgroundPorous tantalum augments are versatile tools in reconstructing complex acetabular defects during revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). This study examines the clinical and radiographic outcomes of porous tantalum augments placed in the type I (flying buttress) configuration at two to 17-year follow-up in the largest cohort to-date in the literature.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed 59 consecutive revision THAs involving the use of flying buttress augments between 2003 and 2018. The mean patient age and follow-up duration were 63.9 ± 11.6 years (range, 35-87) and 8 years (range, 2-17), respectively. The Oxford hip score was used to assess clinical outcome. The modified Moore classification was used to assess acetabular augment and shell osseointegration. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis with 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to assess implant survivorship.ResultsThe mean Oxford hip score improved from 15.9 ± 6.2 preoperatively to 35.0 ± 6.5 at a mean follow-up of eight years (P < .0001). Radiographic assessment using the modified Moore classification demonstrated five signs of osseointegration in 49 hips (83.1%), four signs in six hips (10.2%), three signs in one hip (1.7%), and one sign in one hip (1.7%). Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated ten-year survivorship of 88.9% (95% CI 74.4-95.4) with all-cause revision as end point and 94.3% (95% CI 83.1-98.2) with revision for acetabular aseptic loosening as end point.ConclusionTreatment of superolateral acetabular defects during revision THA using porous tantalum augments placed in the type I (flying buttress) configuration provides excellent implant survivorship and favorable clinical outcomes at mid-term follow-up.Level of EvidenceTherapeutic Level IV.