» Articles » PMID: 32001979

Acetabular Reconstruction in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

Overview
Specialty Orthopedics
Date 2020 Feb 1
PMID 32001979
Citations 13
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The number of total hip arthroplasty (THA) procedures performed annually continues to rise. Specific challenges, including acetabular bone loss, are commonly encountered at the time of revision surgery, and orthopaedic surgeons must be prepared to address them. This review focuses on topics related to acetabular reconstruction, including pre-operative patient evaluation (clinical and radiographic), pre-operative planning, common causes of acetabular failure, classification of acetabular bone loss, methods of acetabular reconstruction, and clinical results based on reconstruction method. Pre-operative patient evaluation for revision THA begins with a thorough history and physical examination as well as laboratory workup to rule out infection. Detailed radiographic evaluation and pre-operative planning are also essential and will facilitate communication amongst all members of the operative team. Although there are several ways to describe acetabular bone loss, the Paprosky classification system - defined by anterosuperior and posteroinferior acetabular column integrity - is the system most commonly used today and will guide treatment strategy. Several treatment strategies have been developed and may be termed either "cemented" (e.g. impaction grafting, ring and cage construction, structural allograft) or "uncemented" (e.g. hemispheric shell ± porous metal augment, cup-cage, custom triflange acetabular component). Although each strategy has its advantages and disadvantages, the general principles remain the same. Successful treatment depends upon detailed pre-operative assessment, planning, and team-based plan execution. Uncemented techniques that allow for biologic fixation are preferred. In the special case of pelvic discontinuity, acetabular distraction is the authors' preferred technique. Longer term studies are still needed to evaluate the longevity of each of the various reconstruction methods presented.

Citing Articles

Efficacy of an artificial intelligence preoperative planning system for assisting in revision surgery after artificial total hip arthroplasty.

Zhu J, Zheng S, Sun J, Ma B, Zhang C, Zhang C BMC Surg. 2025; 25(1):58.

PMID: 39920717 PMC: 11804043. DOI: 10.1186/s12893-024-02752-1.


A new classification to characterize and predict treatment of acetabular bone defects.

Loppini M, Guazzoni E, Gambaro F, La Camera F, Morenghi E, Grappiolo G Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2024; 144(7):2975-2981.

PMID: 38864926 DOI: 10.1007/s00402-024-05327-0.


[Effectiveness analysis of revision surgery after total hip arthroplasty assisted by artificial intelligence preoperative planning system].

Zhu J, Sun J, Liu J, Ma B, Zhang C, Zhang C Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2024; 38(4):455-460.

PMID: 38632066 PMC: 11024537. DOI: 10.7507/1002-1892.202312099.


Trabecular titanium cups in hip revision surgery: a systematic review of the literature.

Cacciola G, Giustra F, Bosco F, De Meo F, Bruschetta A, Martino I Ann Jt. 2024; 8:36.

PMID: 38529221 PMC: 10929389. DOI: 10.21037/aoj-23-28.


A review of the design, manufacture, and outcomes of custom total joint replacement implants available in the United States.

Kaszuba S, Hurley M, Beitler B, Abraham P, Tommasini S, Schwarzkopf R J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2024; 49:102354.

PMID: 38361508 PMC: 10865390. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcot.2024.102354.


References
1.
Campbell D, Garbuz D, Masri B, Duncan C . Reliability of acetabular bone defect classification systems in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2001; 16(1):83-6. DOI: 10.1054/arth.2001.19157. View

2.
Jones C, Lachiewicz P . Factors influencing the longer-term survival of uncemented acetabular components used in total hip revisions. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004; 86(2):342-7. DOI: 10.2106/00004623-200402000-00018. View

3.
Sheth N, Nelson C, Springer B, Fehring T, Paprosky W . Acetabular bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty: evaluation and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2013; 21(3):128-39. DOI: 10.5435/JAAOS-21-03-128. View

4.
Rogers B, Whittingham-Jones P, Mitchell P, Safir O, Bircher M, Gross A . The reconstruction of periprosthetic pelvic discontinuity. J Arthroplasty. 2012; 27(8):1499-1506.e1. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2011.12.017. View

5.
Martino I, Strigelli V, Cacciola G, Gu A, Bostrom M, Sculco P . Survivorship and Clinical Outcomes of Custom Triflange Acetabular Components in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review. J Arthroplasty. 2019; 34(10):2511-2518. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2019.05.032. View