International Orthopaedics

, Volume 29, Issue 5, pp 277–280 | Cite as

Isolated acetabular revision after total hip arthroplasty: results at 5–9 years of follow-up

  • Xiao-Dong Chen
  • James P. WaddellEmail author
  • Jane Morton
  • Emil H. Schemitsch
Original Paper


The purpose of the study was to determine whether isolated revision of the acetabular component can be successfully performed without disturbing the femoral stem and to determine the fate of the unrevised femoral stem following revision. Fifty-seven hips in 55 patients underwent isolated acetabular revision without removal of the femoral component. Thirty-three hips with minimal acetabular deficiency required no bone grafting; the remaining 24 hips were treated by morselized or structural allograft in addition to a new acetabular component. Twenty-two of these 24 hips demonstrated incorporation of the bone graft. A mean follow-up of 5.8 (5–9) years, all femoral and acetabular components were judged to be stable and well fixed.


Femoral Component Aseptic Loosening Acetabular Component Radiolucent Line Cement Mantle 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Le but de l’étude est de déterminer si la révision isolé du composant acétabulaire peut être exécutée avec succès sans déranger la tige fémorale et, deuxièmement, de déterminer l’avenir de la tige fémorale laissée en place, après cette révision. Cinquante-sept hanches chez cinquante-cinq malades ont subi une révision acétabulaire isolée sans ablation du composant fémoral. Trente-trois hanches avec une déficience acétabulaire minime n’ont exigé aucune greffe osseuse; les 24 hanches restantes ont été traitées par une allogreffe morcelée ou structurelle associée à un nouveau composant acétabulaire. Vingt-deux de ces 24 hanches ont montré une incorporation de la greffe d’os. A un suivi moyen de 5,8 ans (5 à 9 ans) tout les composants fémoraux et acétabulaires ont été jugés stables et bien fixés.


  1. 1.
    Astion DJ, Saluan P, Stulberg BN, Rimnac CM, Li S (1996) The porous-coated anatomic total hip prosthesis: failure of the metal-backed acetabular component. J Bone Joint Surg Am 78(5):755–766PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bands R, Pelker RR, Shine J, Bradbum H, Margolis R, Leach J (1991) The noncemented porous-coated hip prosthesis. A three-year clinical follow-up study and roentgenographic analysis. Clin Ortop 269:209–219Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barrack RL, Folgueras AJ (1995) Revision total hip arthroplasty: the femoral component. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 3(2):79–85PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Callaghan JJ, Forest EE, Olejniczak JP, Goetz DD, Johnston RC (1998) Charnley total hip arthroplasty in patients less than fifty years old. A twenty to twenty-five-year follow-up note. J Bone Joint Surg Am 80(5):704–714PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Callaghan JJ, Salvati EA, Pellicci PM, Wilson PD Jr, Ranawat CS (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(7):1074–1085PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    D’Antonio JA, Capello WN, Borden LS, Bargar WL, Bierbaum BF, Boettcher WG, Steinberg ME, Stulberg SD, Wedge JH (1989) Classification and management of acetabular abnormalities in total hip arthroplasty. Clin Ortop 243:126–137Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dorr LD, Wan Z (1996) Comparative results of a distal modular sleeve, circumferential coating, and stiffness relief using the anatomic porous replacement II. J Arthroplast 11(4):419–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Engh CA, Massin P, Suthers KE (1990) Roentgenographic assessment of the biologic fixation of porous-surfaced femoral components. Clin Ortop 257:107–128Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    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(4):737–755PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Harris WH, McGann WA (1986) Loosening of the femoral component after use of the medullary-plug cementing technique. Follow-up note with a minimum five-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 68(7):1064–1066PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kershaw CJ, Atkins RM, Dodd CA, Bulstrode CJ (1991) Revision total hip arthroplasty for aseptic failure. A review of 276 cases. J Bone Joint Surg Br 73(4):564–568PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Maloney WJ, Jasty M, Burke DW, O’Connor DO, Zalenski EB, Bragdon C, Harris WH (1989) Biomechanical and histologic investigation of cemented total hip arthroplasties. A study of autopsy-retrieved femurs after in vivo cycling. Clin Ortop 249:129–140Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Meding JB, Ritter MA, Keating EM, Faris PM (1994) Clinical and radiographic evaluation of long-stem femoral components following revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 9(4):399–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Garbuz D, Morsi E, Gross AE (1996) Revision of the acetabular component of a total hip arthroplasty with a massive structural allograft. Study with a minimum five-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 78(5):693–697PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Moskal JT, Danisa OA, Shaffrey CI (1997) Isolated revision acetabuloplasty using a porous-coated cementless acetabular component without removal of a well-fixed femoral component. A 3- to 9-year follow-up study. J Arthroplast 12(7):719–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Moskal JT, Shen FH, Brown TE (2002) The fate of stable femoral components retained during isolated acetabular revision: a six-to-twelve-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 84(2):250–255PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nabors ED, Liebelt R, Mattingly DA, Bierbaum BE (1996) Removal and reinsertion of cemented femoral components during acetabular revision. J Arthroplast 11(2):146–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Owen TD, Moran CG, Smith SR, Pinder IM (1994) Results of uncemented porous-coated anatomic total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 76(2):258–262PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Paprosky WG, Magnus RE (1994) Principles of bone grafting in revision total hip arthroplasty. Acetabular technique. Clin Ortop 298:147–155Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Poon ED, Lachiewicz PF (1998) Results of isolated acetabular revisions: the fate of the unrevised femoral component. J Arthroplast 13(1):42–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schmalzried TP, Kwong LM, Jasty M, Sedlacek RC, Haire TC, O’Connor DO, Bragdon CR, Kabo JM, Malcolm AJ, Harris WH (1992) The mechanism of loosening of cemented acetabular components in total hip arthroplasty. Analysis of specimens retrieved at autopsy. Clin Ortop 274:60–78Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schulte KR, Callaghan JJ, Kelley SS, Johnston RC (1993) The outcome of Charnley total hip arthroplasty with cement after a minimum twenty-year follow-up. The results of one surgeon. J Bone Joint Surg Am 75(7):961–975PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sinha RK, Shanbhag AS, Maloney WJ, Hasselman CT, Rubash HE (1998) Osteolysis: cause and effect. Instr Course Lect 47:307–320PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Turner RH, Mattingly DA, Scheller A (1987) Femoral revision total hip arthroplasty using a long-stem femoral component. Clinical and radiographic analysis. J Arthroplast 2(3):247–258Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xiao-Dong Chen
    • 1
  • James P. Waddell
    • 2
    Email author
  • Jane Morton
    • 3
  • Emil H. Schemitsch
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryXinhu Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Second Medical UniversityShanghaiPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Division of Orthopaedic SurgerySt. Michael’s HospitalTorontoCanada
  3. 3.Orthopaedic Research OfficeSt. Michael’s HospitalTorontoCanada
  4. 4.St. Michael’s Orthopaedic AssociatesTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations