Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Review of the Treatment of Pelvic Discontinuity

  • Original Article
  • Published:
HSS Journal

Abstract

Pelvic discontinuity is a complex entity with a high surgical complication rate and no standardized treatment to date. Revision hip arthroplasty in cases of massive bone loss remains a difficult and unsolved problem. The goal of the surgeon is to preserve limb function by restoring bone stock and the biomechanics of the hip. In cases of severe acetabular bone loss, biologic fixation is often inadequate, requiring extensive bone grafting and reconstructive cages. Reconstructive cages are the most commonly used devices and are designed to bridge bone defects, protect the bone graft, and reestablish the rotation center of the hip. A major limitation of current cages is that they do not allow for biologic fixation. We review the options for treating patients with massive bone loss and pelvic discontinuity and discuss therapeutic options and the clinical and radiological criteria for success.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

BS:

Burch–Schneider cage

CC:

contour cup cage

NSPD:

not specified for pelvic discontinuity

References

  1. O’Rourke MR, Paprosky WG, Rosemberg AG (2004) Use of structural allografts in acetabular revision surgery. Clin Orthop 420:113–121

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Berry DJ, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD et al (1999) Pelvic discontinuity in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 81:1692–1702

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Harris WH (1998) Reconstruction at a high hip center in acetabular revision surgery using a cementless acetabular component. Orthopedics 21:991–992

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Tanzer M (1998) Role and results of the high hip center. Orthop Clin North Am 29:241–247

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Jasty M (1998) Jumbo cups and morselized graft. Orthop Clin North Am 29:249–254

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. De Boer DK, Christie MJ (1998) Reconstruction of the deficient acetabulum with an oblong prosthesis: three to seven year results. J Arthroplasty 13:674–680

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Koster G, Willert HG, Kohler HP et al (1998) An oblong revision cup for large acetabular defects: design rationale and two to seven year follow up. J Arthroplasty 13:559–569

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Gill TJ, Sledge JB, Mueller ME (1998) The Burch–Schneider anti-protrusio cage in revision hip arthroplasty. Indications, principles and long-term results. J Bone Joint Surg Br 80:946–953

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Garbuz D, Mosri E, Mohammed N et al (1996) Classification and reconstruction in revision acetabular arthroplasty with bone stock deficiency. Clin Orthop 324:98–107

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Goodman S, Sastamoinen H, Shasha N et al (2004) Complications of ilio-ischial reconstructions rings in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 19:436–446

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Holt GE, Dennis DA (2004) Use of custom triflanged acetabular components in revision total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 429:209–214

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Nehme A, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD (2004) Modular porous metal augments for treatment of severe acetabular bone loss during revision hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 429:201–208

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Peters CL, Miller M, Erickson J et al (2004) Acetabular revision with a modular anti-protrusio acetabular component. J Arthroplasty 19:67–72

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Chiang PP, Burke DW, Freiberg AA et al (2003) Osteolysis of the pelvis. Evaluation and treatment. Clin Orthop 417:164–174

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. D’Antonio JA, Capello WN, Borden LS et al (1989) Classification and management of acetabular abnormalities in total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 243:126–137

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Saleh KJ, Holtzman J, Gafni A et al (2001) Development, test reliability and validation of a classification for revision hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Res 19:50–56

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Saleh KJ, Jaroszynski G, Woodgate I et al (2000) Revision total hip arthroplasty with the use of structural acetabular allograft and reconstruction ring. A case series with a 10 year average follow-up. J Arthroplasty 15:951–958

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. 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  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Gross AE (1999) Revision arthroplasty of the acetabulum with restoration of bone stock. Clin Orthop S369:198–207

    Google Scholar 

  20. Stiehl JB, Saluja R, Diener T (2000) Reconstruction of major column defects and pelvic discontinuity in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 15:849–857

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Udomkiat P, Dorr LD, Won YY et al (2001) Technical factors for success with metal ring acetabular reconstruction. J Arthroplasty 16:961–969

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Wachtl S, Jung M, Jakob R et al (2000) The Burch–Schneider antiprotrusio cage in acetabular revision surgery. A mean follow-up of 12 years. J Arthroplasty 15:959–963

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Gross AE, Goodman S (2004) The current role of structural grafts and cages in revision arthroplasty of the hip. Clin Orthop 429:193–200

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Eggli S, Muller C, Ganz R (2002) Revision surgery in pelvic discontinuity. An analysis of seven patients. Clin Orthop 398:136–145

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Murphy SB (2005) Management of acetabular bone stock deficiency. J Arthroplasty 20(S2):85–90

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Mahoney CR, Garvin KL (2002) Periprosthetic acetabular stress fracture causing pelvis discontinuity. Orthopedics 25:83–85

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Springer BD, Berry DJ, Cabanela ME et al (2005) Early postoperative transverse pelvis fracture: a new complication related to revision arthroplasty with an uncemented cup. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87:2626–2632

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Scott MS, O’Rourke M, Chong P et al (2005) The use of structural distal femoral allografts for acetabular reconstruction. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87:760–765

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Shinar AA, Harris WH (1997) Bulk structural autogenous grafts and allografts for reconstruction of the acetabulum in total hip arthroplasty. Sixteen year average follow up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 79:159–168

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Sporer S, O’Rourke M, Paprosky W (2005) The treatment of pelvic discontinuity during acetabular revision. J Arthroplasty 20:79–84

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Kerboull M, Hamadouche M, Kerboull L (2000) The Kerboull acetabular reinforcement device in major acetabular reconstructions. Clin Orthop 378:155–168

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Lietman SA, Bhawnani K (2001) The partial pelvic replacement cup in severe acetabular defects. Orthopedics 24:1131–1135

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Ko PS, Chan WF, Wong MK et al (2004) Fixation using acetabular reconstruction cage and cancellous allografts for intraoperative acetabular fractures associated with cementless acetabular component insertion. J Arthroplasty 19:643–646

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Berry DJ (2004) Antiprotrusio cages for acetabular revision. Clin Orthop 420:106–112

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Shatzker J, Wong M (1999) Acetabular revision. The role of rings and cages. Clin Orthop 369:187–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Böstrom MP, Lehman AP, Buly RL, Lyman S et al (2006) Acetabular revision with the contour antiprotrusio cage, 2- to 5-year followup. Clin Orthop 453:188–194

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Paprosky W, Sporer S, O’Rourke M (2006) The treatment of pelvic discontinuity with acetabular cages. Clin Orthop 453:183–187

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Christie MJ, Barrington SA, Brinson MF et al (2001) Bridging massive acetabular defects with the triflanged cup: 2 to 9 years result. Clin Orthop 393:216–227

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Joshi AB, Lee J, Christensen C (2002) Results for a custom acetabular component for acetabular deficiency. J Arthroplasty 17:643–648

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Levine B, Della Valle C, Jacobs J (2006) Applications of porous tantalum in total hip arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 14:646–665

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Sporer SM, Paprosky WG (2006) Acetabular revision using a trabecular metal acetabular component for severe acetabular bone loss associated with a pelvic discontinuity. J Arthroplasty 21:87–90

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Hanssen AD, Lewallen DG (2004) Acetabular cages. A ladder across a melting pond. Orthopedics 27:830–32

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Gross AE, Goodman SB (2005) Rebuilding the skeleton. The intraoperative use of trabecular metal in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 20:91–93

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Nercessian OA (1999) Intraoperative complications. In: Steinberg ME, Garino JP (eds) Revision hip arthroplasty. Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 443–456

    Google Scholar 

  45. Dennis DA (2003) Management of massive acetabular defects in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 18:121–125

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Winter E, Piert M, Volkmann R et al (2001) Allogeneic cancellous bone graft and a Bursch–Schneider ring for acetabular reconstruction in revision hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg 83A:862–867

    Google Scholar 

  47. Cook SD, Barrack RL, Shimmin A et al (2001) The use of osteogenic protein-1 in reconstructive surgery of the hip. J Arthroplasty 16:88–94

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Gamradt SC, Lieberman JR (2003) Bone graft for revision hip arthroplasty. Biology and future applications. Clin Orthop 417:183–194

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Speirs AD, Oxland TR, Masri BA et al (2005) Calcium phosphate cement composite in revision hip arthroplasty. Biomaterials 26:7310–7318

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Kärrholm J, Hourigan P, Timperley J et al (2006) Mixing bone graft with OP-1 does not improve cup or stem fixation in revision surgery of the hip. 5-year follow-up of 10 acetabular and 11 femoral study cases and 40 control cases. Acta Orthop Scan 77:39–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. McDonald SJ, Mehin R. (2005) Acetabular revision: structural grafts. Advanced reconstruction. Hip. In Lieberman JR and Berry DJ (Ed) AAOS, pp 335–342

  52. Slooff TJ, Gardeniers JW, Schreurs BW et al (1999) Acetabular bone grafting: impacted cancellous allografts. In: Steinberg ME, Garino JP (eds) Revision hip arthroplasty. Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 249–261

    Google Scholar 

  53. Schreurs BW, Slooff TJ, Gardeniers JW et al (2001) Acetabular reconstruction with bone impaction grafting and a cemented cup. Clin Orthop 393:202–215

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Van Haaren EH, Heyligers IC, Alexander FG, Wuisman PI (2007) High rate of failure of impaction grafting in large acetabular defects. J Bone Joint Surg Br 89(3):296–300

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors sincerely thank Mr. Thomas O’Boyle and the Foundation for Biomedical Investigation of “Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón” for editorial assistance.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, C. Dr. Esquerdo 46, 28007, Madrid, Spain

    M. Villanueva MD, PhD

  2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Hospital Virgen del Mar, Almería, Spain

    A. Rios-Luna MD, PhD

  3. Neuroscience and Health Science Department, University of Almeria, Almeria, Spain

    A. Rios-Luna MD, PhD

  4. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Hospital Clínico Universitario, C/ Profesor Martín Lagos S/N, 28040, Madrid, Spain

    J. Pereiro De Lamo MD

  5. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Hospital Fundación Alcorcón, Madrid, Spain

    H. Fahandez-Saddi MD

  6. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, USA

    M. P. G. Böstrom MD

Authors
  1. M. Villanueva MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. Rios-Luna MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. Pereiro De Lamo MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. H. Fahandez-Saddi MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. M. P. G. Böstrom MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Villanueva MD, PhD.

Additional information

Level of evidence. Level V. Expert Opinion.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Villanueva, M., Rios-Luna, A., Pereiro De Lamo, J. et al. A Review of the Treatment of Pelvic Discontinuity. HSS Jrnl 4, 128–137 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11420-008-9075-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11420-008-9075-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation