Decision/therapeutic Algorithm for Acetabular Revisions

Overview

Journal Acta Biomed

Specialty General Medicine

Date 2021 Feb 9

PMID 33559630

Citations 1

Authors

Alessandro Aprato

Matteo Olivero

Paolo Di Benedetto

Alessandro Masse

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background And Aim: Paprosky's classification is currently the most used classification for periacetabular bone defects but its validity and reliability are widely discussed in literature. Aim of this study was to introduce a new CT-based Acetabular Revision Algorithm (CT-ARA) and to evaluate its validity. The CT-ARA is based on the integrity of five anatomical structures that support the acetabulum. Classification's groups are defined by the deficiency of one or more of these structures, treatment is based on those groups.

Methods: In 105 patients the validity of the CT-ARA was retrospectively evaluated using preoperative X-rays, CT-scan and surgery reports. The surgical indications suggested by Paprosky's algorithm and by CT-ARA were compared with the final surgical technique. Patients were divided into two groups according to time of surgery.

Results: We reported concordance of indications in 56,2% of cases with the Paprosky's algorithm and in 63,8% of cases with the CT-ARA. Analysing only the most recent surgeries (group 2), we reported even higher difference of concordance (67,3% Paprosky's algorithm and 83,7% CT-ARA). The concordance of the CT-ARA among Group 1 and Group 2 resulted significantly different.

Conclusions: the CT-ARA may be a useful tool for the preoperative decision-making process and showed more correlation with performed surgery compared to the Paprosky's algorithm.

Citing Articles

Impact of three-dimensional printed planning in Paprosky III acetabular defects: a case-control and cost-comparison analysis.

Giachino M, Aprato A, Limone B, Ciccone G, Rosso T, Masse A Int Orthop. 2023; 47(6):1465-1472.

PMID: 36930258 DOI: 10.1007/s00264-023-05763-4.

References

Volpin A, Konan S, Biz C, Tansey R, Haddad F . Reconstruction of failed acetabular component in the presence of severe acetabular bone loss: a systematic review. Musculoskelet Surg. 2018; 103(1):1-13. DOI: 10.1007/s12306-018-0539-7. View

Paprosky W, Perona P, Lawrence J . Acetabular defect classification and surgical reconstruction in revision arthroplasty. A 6-year follow-up evaluation. J Arthroplasty. 1994; 9(1):33-44. DOI: 10.1016/0883-5403(94)90135-x. View

Garcia-Cimbrelo E, Garcia-Rey E . Bone defect determines acetabular revision surgery. Hip Int. 2014; 24 Suppl 10:S33-6. DOI: 10.5301/hipint.5000162. View

Sloan M, Premkumar A, Sheth N . Projected Volume of Primary Total Joint Arthroplasty in the U.S., 2014 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2018; 100(17):1455-1460. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.17.01617. View

Telleria J, Gee A . Classifications in brief: Paprosky classification of acetabular bone loss. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013; 471(11):3725-30. PMC: 3792247. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-013-3264-4. View

Horas K, Arnholdt J, Steinert A, Hoberg M, Rudert M, Holzapfel B . Acetabular defect classification in times of 3D imaging and patient-specific treatment protocols. Orthopade. 2017; 46(2):168-178. DOI: 10.1007/s00132-016-3378-y. View

Leung S, Naudie D, Kitamura N, Walde T, Engh C . Computed tomography in the assessment of periacetabular osteolysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005; 87(3):592-7. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.D.02116. View

Sporer S, ORourke M, Paprosky W . The treatment of pelvic discontinuity during acetabular revision. J Arthroplasty. 2005; 20(4 Suppl 2):79-84. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2005.03.006. View

Claus A, Engh Jr C, Sychterz C, Xenos J, Orishimo K, Engh Sr C . Radiographic definition of pelvic osteolysis following total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003; 85(8):1519-26. DOI: 10.2106/00004623-200308000-00013. View

10.

Yu R, Hofstaetter J, Sullivan T, Costi K, Howie D, Solomon L . Validity and reliability of the Paprosky acetabular defect classification. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013; 471(7):2259-65. PMC: 3676616. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-013-2844-7. View

11.

Aprato A, Olivero M, Vergano L, Masse A . Outcome of cages in revision arthroplasty of the acetabulum: a systematic review. Acta Biomed. 2019; 90(1-S):24-31. PMC: 6503392. DOI: 10.23750/abm.v90i1-S.8081. View

12.

Paprosky W, ORourke M, Sporer S . The treatment of acetabular bone defects with an associated pelvic discontinuity. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005; 441:216-20. DOI: 10.1097/01.blo.0000194311.20901.f9. View

13.

Wirtz D, Jaenisch M, Osterhaus T, Gathen M, Wimmer M, Randau T . Acetabular defects in revision hip arthroplasty: a therapy-oriented classification. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2020; 140(6):815-825. PMC: 7244606. DOI: 10.1007/s00402-020-03379-6. View

14.

Gozzard C, Blom A, Taylor A, Smith E, Learmonth I . A comparison of the reliability and validity of bone stock loss classification systems used for revision hip surgery. J Arthroplasty. 2003; 18(5):638-42. DOI: 10.1016/s0883-5403(03)00107-4. View

15.

Sporer S . How to do a revision total hip arthroplasty: revision of the acetabulum. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011; 93(14):1359-66. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.9314icl. View

16.

Paprosky W, Cross M . CORR Insights®: Validity and reliability of the Paprosky acetabular defect classification. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013; 471(7):2266. PMC: 3676613. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-013-2938-2. View

17.

Fehring K, Howe B, Martin J, Taunton M, Berry D . Preoperative Evaluation for Pelvic Discontinuity Using a New Reformatted Computed Tomography Scan Protocol. J Arthroplasty. 2016; 31(10):2247-51. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2016.02.028. View

18.

Garcia-Cimbrelo E, Tapia M, Martin-Hervas C . Multislice computed tomography for evaluating acetabular defects in revision THA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007; 463:138-43. View

19.

Judet R, JUDET J, LETOURNEL E . FRACTURES OF THE ACETABULUM: CLASSIFICATION AND SURGICAL APPROACHES FOR OPEN REDUCTION. PRELIMINARY REPORT. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1964; 46:1615-46. View

20.

Aprato A, Olivero M, Iannizzi G, Bistolfi A, Sabatini L, Masse A . Pelvic discontinuity in acetabular revisions: does CT scan overestimate it? A comparative study of diagnostic accuracy of 3D-modeling and traditional 3D CT scan. Musculoskelet Surg. 2019; 104(2):171-177. DOI: 10.1007/s12306-019-00608-z. View