Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Use of porous tantalum components in Paprosky two and three acetabular revision. A minimum five-year follow-up of fifty one hips

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Recent studies have reported short-term favourable results of tantalum-made components in acetabular revisions with bone loss. However, there is a lack of information regarding the mid to long-term results of such components.

Objectives

The objective of this study was to analyse the outcome and survivorship of acetabular revision hip arthroplasty using tantalum components for loosening associated with bone loss at a minimum of five-year follow-up.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 51 consecutive patients (51 hips) who had an acetabular revision using porous tantalum components at a minimum follow-up of five years. The mean age was 64 years (range, 31–87). There were 27 males and 24 females, 47 right hips and four left hips. Twenty-five (49 %) included a femoral revision. According to Paprosky’s classification 18 hips were classified type 2A, 11 type 2B, ten type 2C, seven type 3A and five type 3B. No bone grafting was performed. Sixteen hips (31.3 %) required the use of additional tantalum-made augments stabilized by screws and cement at the cup-augment interface.

Results

At a mean followup of 6.8 years (range, 5.1–10 years), the Harris hip score improved from 44 pre- operatively (range, 23–72) to 84 post-operatively (range, 33–98). The mean post-operative hip centre position in relation to the teardrop was 29 mm (range, 20—43 mm) horizontally and 21 mm (range, 8—36 mm) vertically. The mean acetabular inclination was 42° (range, 17–60°). Six hips (11.7 %) required a re-operation without component revision (two for chronic instability, one ossification removal, one haematoma, one deep infection and one periprosthetic femoral fracture). One patient required a cup re-revision for septic loosening. No aseptic loosening occurred. At last followup the radiological analysis showed one evolutive osteolysis and one screw breakage. The global survivorship was 92.3 % at 64 months. If only aseptic loosening was defined as the end-point the survivorship was 100 % at 64 months.

Conclusions

When facing an acetabular revision with severe bone loss, tantalum-made components can provide a stable fixation. This study at a minimum five-year follow-up compares favourably with other reconstruction techniques, but longer follow-up is still required.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Gross AE (1999) Revision arthroplasty of the acetabulum with restoration of bone stock. Clin Orthop 198–207

  2. Gross AE, Goodman S (2004) The role of cages and rings: when all else fails. Orthopedics 27:969–970

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Gross AE, Goodman S (2004) The current role of structural grafts and cages in revision arthroplasty of the hip. Clin Orthop 193–200

  4. Zazgyva A, Zuh S-G, Roman CO et al (2015) Acetabular reconstruction with a reinforcement device and bone grafting in revision arthroplasty-a mean five years of follow-up. Int Orthop 40(8):1631–1638. doi:10.1007/s00264-015-3030-1

  5. Mao Y, Xu C, Xu J et al (2015) The use of customized cages in revision total hip arthroplasty for Paprosky type III acetabular bone defects. Int Orthop 39:2023–2030. doi:10.1007/s00264-015-2965-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Schreurs BW, Bolder SBT, Gardeniers JWM et al (2004) Acetabular revision with impacted morsellised cancellous bone grafting and a cemented cup. A 15- to 20-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 86:492–497

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Gilbody J, Taylor C, Bartlett GE et al (2014) Clinical and radiographic outcomes of acetabular impaction grafting without cage reinforcement for revision hip replacement: a minimum ten-year follow-up study. Bone Jt J 96-B:188–194. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.96B2.32121

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Chen WM, Engh CA, Hopper RH et al (2000) Acetabular revision with use of a bilobed component inserted without cement in patients who have acetabular bone-stock deficiency. J Bone Joint Surg Am 82:197–206

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Sporer SM, Paprosky WG (2006) The use of a trabecular metal acetabular component and trabecular metal augment for severe acetabular defects. J Arthroplasty 21:83–86. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2006.05.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Del Gaizo DJ, Kancherla V, Sporer SM, Paprosky WG (2012) Tantalum augments for Paprosky IIIA defects remain stable at midterm followup. Clin Orthop 470:395–401. doi:10.1007/s11999-011-2170-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Flecher X, Paprosky W, Grillo J-C et al (2010) Do tantalum components provide adequate primary fixation in all acetabular revisions? Orthop Traumatol Surg Res OTSR 96:235–241. doi:10.1016/j.otsr.2009.11.014

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Paprosky WG, Perona PG, Lawrence JM (1994) Acetabular defect classification and surgical reconstruction in revision arthroplasty. A 6-year follow-up evaluation. J Arthroplasty 9:33–44

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Siegmeth A, Duncan CP, Masri BA et al (2009) Modular tantalum augments for acetabular defects in revision hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 467:199–205. doi:10.1007/s11999-008-0549-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Dearborn JT, Harris WH (2000) Acetabular revision arthroplasty using so-called jumbo cementless components: an average 7-year follow-up study. J Arthroplasty 15:8–15

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hendricks KJ, Harris WH (2006) Revision of failed acetabular components with use of so-called jumbo noncemented components. A concise follow-up of a previous report. J Bone Joint Surg Am 88:559–563. doi:10.2106/JBJS.E.00389

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Whaley AL, Berry DJ, Harmsen WS (2001) Extra-large uncemented hemispherical acetabular components for revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 83-A:1352–1357

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Dearborn JT, Harris WH (1999) High placement of an acetabular component inserted without cement in a revision total hip arthroplasty. Results after a mean of ten years. J Bone Joint Surg Am 81:469–480

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Della Valle CJ, Berger RA, Rosenberg AG, Galante JO (2004) Cementless acetabular reconstruction in revision total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 96–100

  19. Della Valle CJ, Shuaipaj T, Berger RA et al (2005) Revision of the acetabular component without cement after total hip arthroplasty. A concise follow-up, at fifteen to nineteen years, of a previous report. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87:1795–1800. doi:10.2106/JBJS.D.01818

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Leopold SS, Rosenberg AG, Bhatt RD et al (1999) Cementless acetabular revision. Evaluation at an average of 10.5 years. Clin Orthop 179–186

  21. Clement RGE, Ray AG, MacDonald DJ et al (2015) Trabecular metal use in Paprosky type 2 and 3 acetabular defects: 5-year follow-up. J Arthroplasty 31(4):863–867. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2015.10.033

  22. Grappiolo G, Loppini M, Longo UG et al (2015) Trabecular metal augments for the management of Paprosky type III defects without pelvic discontinuity. J Arthroplasty 30:1024–1029. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2015.01.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Whitehouse MR, Masri BA, Duncan CP, Garbuz DS (2015) Continued good results with modular trabecular metal augments for acetabular defects in hip arthroplasty at 7 to 11 years. Clin Orthop 473:521–527. doi:10.1007/s11999-014-3861-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Davies JH, Laflamme GY, Delisle J, Fernandes J (2011) Trabecular metal used for major bone loss in acetabular hip revision. J Arthroplasty 26:1245–1250. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2011.02.022

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Lakstein D, Backstein D, Safir O et al (2009) Trabecular metal cups for acetabular defects with 50% or less host bone contact. Clin Orthop 467:2318–2324. doi:10.1007/s11999-009-0772-3

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Van Kleunen JP, Lee G-C, Lementowski PW et al (2009) Acetabular revisions using trabecular metal cups and augments. J Arthroplasty 24:64–68. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2009.02.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Flecher X, Sporer S, Paprosky W (2008) Management of severe bone loss in acetabular revision using a trabecular metal shell. J Arthroplasty 23:949–955. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2007.08.019

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Black J (1994) Biological performance of tantalum. Clin Mater 16:167–173

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Bobyn JD, Poggie RA, Krygier JJ et al (2004) Clinical validation of a structural porous tantalum biomaterial for adult reconstruction. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86-A(Suppl 2):123–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Unger AS, Lewis RJ, Gruen T (2005) Evaluation of a porous tantalum uncemented acetabular cup in revision total hip arthroplasty: clinical and radiological results of 60 hips. J Arthroplasty 20:1002–1009. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2005.01.023

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Christie MJ (2002) Clinical applications of Trabecular Metal. Am J Orthop Belle Mead NJ 31:219–220

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Nehme A, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD (2004) Modular porous metal augments for treatment of severe acetabular bone loss during revision hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 201–208

  33. Steno B, Kokavec M, Necas L (2015) Acetabular revision arthroplasty using trabecular titanium implants. Int Orthop 39:389–395. doi:10.1007/s00264-014-2509-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Harris WH (1969) Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 51:737–755

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Callaghan JJ, Salvati EA, Pellicci PM et al (1985) Results of revision for mechanical failure after cemented total hip replacement, 1979 to 1982. A two to five-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 67:1074–1085

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. DeLee JG, Charnley J (1976) Radiological demarcation of cemented sockets in total hip replacement. Clin Orthop 20–32

  37. Massin P, Schmidt L, Engh CA (1989) Evaluation of cementless acetabular component migration. An experimental study. Arthroplasty 4:245–251

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Gill TJ, Sledge JB, Müller ME (1998) The Bürch-Schneider anti-protrusio cage in revision total hip arthroplasty: indications, principles and long-term results. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 80:946–953

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Kerboull M, Hamadouche M, Kerboull L (2000) The Kerboull acetabular reinforcement device in major acetabular reconstructions. Clin Orthop 155–168

  40. Symeonides PP, Petsatodes GE, Pournaras JD et al (2009) The Effectiveness of the Burch-Schneider antiprotrusio cage for acetabular bone deficiency: five to twenty-one years’ follow-up. J Arthroplasty 24:168–174. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2007.10.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Berry DJ, Müller ME (1992) Revision arthroplasty using an anti-protrusio cage for massive acetabular bone deficiency. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 74:711–715

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Bonnomet F, Clavert P, Gicquel P et al (2001) Reconstruction by graft and reinforcement device in severe aseptic acetabular loosening: 10 years survivorship analysis. Rev Chir Orthop Réparatrice Appar Mot 87:135–146

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Morand F, Clarac JP, Gayet LE, Pries P (1998) Acetabular reconstruction using bone allograft in the revision of total hip prosthesis. Rev Chir Orthop Réparatrice Appar Mot 84:154–161

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Van Koeveringe AJ, Ochsner PE (2002) Revision cup arthroplasty using Burch-Schneider anti-protrusio cage. Int Orthop 26:291–295. doi:10.1007/s00264-002-0361-5

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Paprosky WG, Magnus RE (1994) Principles of bone grafting in revision total hip arthroplasty. Acetabular technique. Clin Orthop 147–155

  46. Banerjee S, Issa K, Kapadia BH et al (2014) Systematic review on outcomes of acetabular revisions with highly-porous metals. Int Orthop 38:689–702. doi:10.1007/s00264-013-2145-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Lachiewicz PF, Soileau ES (2010) Tantalum components in difficult acetabular revisions. Clin Orthop 468:454–458. doi:10.1007/s11999-009-0940-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Aix-Marseille Univ, CNRS, ISM, Inst Movement Sci, Marseille, France

    Xavier Flecher, Benjamin Appy, Sébastien Parratte, Matthieu Ollivier & Jean-Noel Argenson

  2. Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, APHM, Sainte-Marguerite Hospital, Institute for Locomotion, Marseille, France

    Xavier Flecher, Benjamin Appy, Sébastien Parratte, Matthieu Ollivier & Jean-Noel Argenson

Authors
  1. Xavier Flecher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Benjamin Appy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sébastien Parratte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Matthieu Ollivier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jean-Noel Argenson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthieu Ollivier.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Funding

There is no funding source.

Ethical approval

The local ethic committee (CIL) has approved the content of the study.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Flecher, X., Appy, B., Parratte, S. et al. Use of porous tantalum components in Paprosky two and three acetabular revision. A minimum five-year follow-up of fifty one hips. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 41, 911–916 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-016-3312-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-016-3312-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation