Comparison of the Stability of Three Fixation Techniques Between Porous Metal Acetabular Components and Augments

Overview

Journal Bone Joint Res

Date 2018 Jun 21

PMID 29922446

Citations 15

Authors

N A Beckmann

R G Bitsch

M Gondan

M Schonhoff

S Jaeger

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: In order to address acetabular defects, porous metal revision acetabular components and augments have been developed, which require fixation to each other. The fixation technique that results in the smallest relative movement between the components, as well as its influence on the primary stability with the host bone, have not previously been determined.

Methods: A total of 18 composite hemipelvises with a Paprosky IIB defect were implanted using a porous titanium 56 mm multihole acetabular component and 1 cm augment. Each acetabular component and augment was affixed to the bone using two screws, while the method of fixation between the acetabular component and augment varied for the three groups of six hemipelvises: group S, screw fixation only; group SC, screw plus cement fixation; group C, cement fixation only. The implanted hemipelvises were cyclically loaded to three different loading maxima (0.5 kN, 0.9 kN, and 1.8 kN).

Results: Screw fixation alone resulted in up to three times more movement (p = 0.006), especially when load was increased to 100% (p < 0.001), than with the other two fixation methods (C and SC). No significant difference was noted when a screw was added to the cement fixation. Increased load resulted in increased relative movement between the interfaces in all fixation methods (p < 0.001).

Conclusion: Cement fixation between a porous titanium acetabular component and augment is associated with less relative movement than screw fixation alone for all implant interfaces, particularly with increasing loads. Adding a screw to the cement fixation did not offer any significant advantage. These results also show that the stability of the tested acetabular component/augment interface affects the stability of the construct that is affixed to the bone.: N. A. Beckmann, R. G. Bitsch, M. Gondan, M. Schonhoff, S. Jaeger. Comparison of the stability of three fixation techniques between porous metal acetabular components and augments. 2018;7:282-288. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.74.BJR-2017-0198.R1.

Citing Articles

Acetabular Home Run Screw Guidance for Transiliac Fixation in Cup Revision Arthroplasty.

Wessling M, Gebert C, Marei M, Dudda M, Streitbuerger A, Aach M J Clin Med. 2025; 14(3).

PMID: 39941593 PMC: 11818629. DOI: 10.3390/jcm14030922.

Standardized 3D-printed trabecular titanium augment and cup for acetabular bone defects in revision hip arthroplasty: a mid-term follow-up study.

Hao L, Zhang Y, Bian W, Song W, Li K, Wang N J Orthop Surg Res. 2023; 18(1):521.

PMID: 37481549 PMC: 10362760. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-023-03986-0.

Acetabular Wall Weakening in Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Pilot Study.

Gautreaux M, Kautz S, Martin Z, Morgan E, Barton R, Dubose M Pathophysiology. 2023; 30(2):83-91.

PMID: 37092522 PMC: 10123709. DOI: 10.3390/pathophysiology30020008.

Treatment of Acetabular Bone Defect in Revision of Total Hip Arthroplasty Using 3D Printed Tantalum Acetabular Augment.

Ying J, Cheng L, Li J, Wu B, Qiu X, Zhang T Orthop Surg. 2023; 15(5):1264-1271.

PMID: 36896785 PMC: 10157706. DOI: 10.1111/os.13691.

Extended Ischiopubic Fixation Using Porous Metal Augments in Cementless Acetabular Reconstruction during Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty.

Huang Y, Tang H, Zhou Y, Shao H, Yang D, Zhou B Orthop Surg. 2022; 14(10):2480-2488.

PMID: 36028942 PMC: 9531101. DOI: 10.1111/os.13462.

References

Perona P, Lawrence J, Paprosky W, Patwardhan A, Sartori M . Acetabular micromotion as a measure of initial implant stability in primary hip arthroplasty. An in vitro comparison of different methods of initial acetabular component fixation. J Arthroplasty. 1992; 7(4):537-47. DOI: 10.1016/s0883-5403(06)80076-8. View

Beckmann N, Bitsch R, Seeger J, Klotz M, Kretzer J, Jaeger S . Mechanical properties of a cemented porous implant interface. Acta Orthop. 2014; 85(5):531-7. PMC: 4164873. DOI: 10.3109/17453674.2014.919557. View

Collier J, Mayor M, Jensen R, Surprenant V, Surprenant H, McNamar J . Mechanisms of failure of modular prostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1992; (285):129-39. View

Nie Y, Pei F, Li Z . Effect of high hip center on stress for dysplastic hip. Orthopedics. 2014; 37(7):e637-43. DOI: 10.3928/01477447-20140626-55. View

Pilliar R, Lee J, Maniatopoulos C . Observations on the effect of movement on bone ingrowth into porous-surfaced implants. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1986; (208):108-13. View

Abolghasemian M, Tangsataporn S, Sternheim A, Backstein D, Safir O, Gross A . Combined trabecular metal acetabular shell and augment for acetabular revision with substantial bone loss: a mid-term review. Bone Joint J. 2013; 95-B(2):166-72. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.95B2.30608. View

Garbuz D, Morsi E, Gross A . Revision of the acetabular component of a total hip arthroplasty with a massive structural allograft. Study with a minimum five-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1996; 78(5):693-7. DOI: 10.2106/00004623-199605000-00008. View

Stiehl J, Macmillan E, Skrade D . Mechanical stability of porous-coated acetabular components in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 1991; 6(4):295-300. DOI: 10.1016/s0883-5403(06)80179-8. View

Matharu G, Judge A, Murray D, Pandit H . Outcomes following revision surgery performed for adverse reactions to metal debris in non-metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty patients: Analysis of 185 revisions from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Bone Joint Res. 2017; 6(7):405-413. PMC: 5539305. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.67.BJR-2017-0017.R2. View

10.

Beckmann N, Weiss S, Klotz M, Gondan M, Jaeger S, Bitsch R . Loosening after acetabular revision: comparison of trabecular metal and reinforcement rings. A systematic review. J Arthroplasty. 2013; 29(1):229-35. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2013.04.035. View

11.

Martin C, Heiner A, Baer T, Pugely A, Noiseux N . Protrusio After Medial Acetabular Wall Breach in Total Hip Arthroplasty. Iowa Orthop J. 2015; 35:99-107. PMC: 4492152. View

12.

Bergmann G, Deuretzbacher G, Heller M, Graichen F, Rohlmann A, Strauss J . Hip contact forces and gait patterns from routine activities. J Biomech. 2001; 34(7):859-71. DOI: 10.1016/s0021-9290(01)00040-9. View

13.

Engh C, OConnor D, Jasty M, McGovern T, Bobyn J, Harris W . Quantification of implant micromotion, strain shielding, and bone resorption with porous-coated anatomic medullary locking femoral prostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1992; (285):13-29. View

14.

Huk O, Bansal M, Betts F, Rimnac C, Lieberman J, Huo M . Polyethylene and metal debris generated by non-articulating surfaces of modular acetabular components. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1994; 76(4):568-74. View

15.

Steno B, Kokavec M, Necas L . Acetabular revision arthroplasty using trabecular titanium implants. Int Orthop. 2014; 39(3):389-95. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-014-2509-5. View

16.

Whitehouse M, Masri B, Duncan C, Garbuz D . Continued good results with modular trabecular metal augments for acetabular defects in hip arthroplasty at 7 to 11 years. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014; 473(2):521-7. PMC: 4294936. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-014-3861-x. View

17.

Beckmann N, Jaeger S, Janoszka M, Klotz M, Bruckner T, Bitsch R . Comparison of the Primary Stability of a Porous Coated Acetabular Revision Cup With a Standard Cup. J Arthroplasty. 2017; 33(2):580-585. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2017.09.023. View

18.

Zech S, Goesling T, Hankemeier S, Knobloch K, Geerling J, Schultz-Brunn K . Differences in the mechanical properties of calcaneal artificial specimens, fresh frozen specimens, and embalmed specimens in experimental testing. Foot Ankle Int. 2007; 27(12):1126-36. DOI: 10.1177/107110070602701220. View

19.

Pollock F, Whiteside L . The fate of massive allografts in total hip acetabular revision surgery. J Arthroplasty. 1992; 7(3):271-6. DOI: 10.1016/0883-5403(92)90048-u. View

20.

Meneghini R, Hull J, Russo G, Lieberman J, Jiranek W . Porous Tantalum Buttress Augments for Severe Acetabular Posterior Column Deficiency. Surg Technol Int. 2015; 27:240-4. View