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

Overview

Journal Orthop Surg

Specialty Orthopedics

Date 2023 Jan 16

PMID 36644857

Authors

Chao Yang

Kechao Zhu

Huiyong Dai

Xianlong Zhang

Qiaojie Wang

Qi Wang

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: In 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.

Methods: This 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.

Results: At 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.

Conclusion: IBG 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.

Citing Articles

Use of morselized bone allograft in revision hip arthroplasty for massive acetabular defect: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Cimatti P, Del Piccolo N, Dallari B, Mazzotta A, Dallari D J Exp Orthop. 2024; 11(4):e70091.

PMID: 39634575 PMC: 11615971. DOI: 10.1002/jeo2.70091.

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.

References

Noordin S, Masri B, Duncan C, Garbuz D . Acetabular bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty: principles and techniques. Instr Course Lect. 2010; 59:27-36. View

Green C, Buckley S, Hamer A, Kerry R, Harrison T . Long-term results of acetabular reconstruction using irradiated allograft bone. Bone Joint J. 2018; 100-B(11):1449-1454. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.100B11.BJJ-2018-0478.R2. View

Jenkins D, Odland A, Sierra R, Hanssen A, Lewallen D . Minimum Five-Year Outcomes with Porous Tantalum Acetabular Cup and Augment Construct in Complex Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017; 99(10):e49. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.16.00125. View

DeLee J, CHARNLEY J . Radiological demarcation of cemented sockets in total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1976; (121):20-32. View

Quarto E, Zanirato A, Santolini F, Formica M . Bone impaction grafting and anti-protrusio cages in high-grade acetabular defects: a 22-year single centre experience. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2021; 142(8):2083-2091. DOI: 10.1007/s00402-021-04081-x. View

Moon N, Shin W, Do M, Kang S, Lee S, Suh K . Wear and osteolysis outcomes for highly cross-linked polyethylene in primary total hip arthroplasty compared with conventional polyethylene: a 15- to 18-year single-centre follow-up study. Hip Int. 2020; 31(4):526-532. DOI: 10.1177/1120700019896970. View

Duarte G, Pires R, Machado C, Andrade M . Reconstruction of Acetabular Defects With Impaction Grafting in Primary Cemented Total Hip Arthroplasty Produces Favorable Results: Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes Over 6.4 Years on Average. J Arthroplasty. 2020; 36(1):200-209. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2020.07.044. View

Schreurs B, Keurentjes J, Gardeniers J, Verdonschot N, Slooff T, Veth R . Acetabular revision with impacted morsellised cancellous bone grafting and a cemented acetabular component: a 20- to 25-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009; 91(9):1148-53. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.91B9.21750. View

Linde F, Jensen J, Pilgaard S . Charnley arthroplasty in osteoarthritis secondary to congenital dislocation or subluxation of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988; 227:164-71. View

10.

Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M . Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007; 89(4):780-5. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.F.00222. View

11.

Atilla B, Ali H, Aksoy M, Caglar O, Tokgozoglu A, Alpaslan M . Position of the acetabular component determines the fate of femoral head autografts in total hip replacement for acetabular dysplasia. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007; 89(7):874-8. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.89B7.18417. View

12.

Sershon R, McDonald 3rd J, Nagda S, Hamilton W, Engh Jr C . Custom Triflange Cups: 20-Year Experience. J Arthroplasty. 2021; 36(9):3264-3268. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2021.05.005. View

13.

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

14.

Busch V, Gardeniers J, Verdonschot N, Slooff T, Schreurs B . 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. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011; 93(4):367-71. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.I.01532. View

15.

Buckley S, Stockley I, Hamer A, Kerry R . Irradiated allograft bone for acetabular revision surgery. Results at a mean of five years. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005; 87(3):310-3. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620x.87b3.14690. View

16.

Perlbach R, Palm L, Mohaddes M, Ivarsson I, Schilcher J . Good implant survival after acetabular revision with extensive impaction bone grafting and uncemented components. Bone Joint J. 2020; 102-B(2):198-204. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.102B2.BJJ-2019-0584.R2. View

17.

Patel S, Sukeik M, Haddad F . Initial implant stability predicts migration but not failure in cementless acetabular revision with bone grafting. J Arthroplasty. 2013; 28(5):832-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2012.10.010. View

18.

Malahias M, Mancino F, Gu A, Adriani M, Martino I, Boettner F . Acetabular impaction grafting with mesh for acetabular bone defects: a systematic review. Hip Int. 2020; 32(2):185-196. DOI: 10.1177/1120700020971851. View

19.

Emms N, Buckley S, Stockley I, Hamer A, Kerry R . Mid- to long-term results of irradiated allograft in acetabular reconstruction: a follow-up report. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009; 91(11):1419-23. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.91B11.22274. View

20.

Stigbrand H, Gustafsson O, Ullmark G . 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. J Arthroplasty. 2017; 33(3):815-822. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2017.10.006. View