Clinical and radiological outcomes of trabecular metal systems and antiprotrusion cages in acetabular revision surgery with severe defects: a comparative study
- 113 Downloads
Acetabular revision surgery poses a challenge due to the increased frequency of severe defects and poor quality of the remaining bone. We compare the clinical and radiological outcomes, complications, and survival of two systems commonly used in complex acetabular revisions (AAOS types II, III, and IV): trabecular metal system (TM) and Burch-Schneider antiprotrusion cages (BS).
Eighty-four patients underwent acetabular revision surgery with TM or BS in our centre between 2008 and 2014. Comparison was made of demographic and clinical characteristics, satisfaction, radiographic parameters, complications, and survival of the implants. A BS was implanted in 30.9% of the patients, while 69.1% received a TM implant. The mean follow-up was 4.77 years.
The BS group required a significantly greater number of constrained implants (p = 0.001) and more walking aids (p = 0.04). The mean satisfaction (p = 0.02) and HHS scores at the end of the follow-up were higher in the TM group (p = 0.003). No differences were observed in the incidence of complications, though the only two cases of implant rupture corresponded to the BS group. The overall survival rate was 88.1% after 7.5 years.
TM implants afforded better clinical outcomes and greater patient satisfaction than antiprotrusion cages in the treatment of severe acetabular defects.
KeywordsHip arthroplasty Revision Trabecular metal system Antiprotrusion cages
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors. The present study was carried out following approval by the local Ethics Committee (code: COTCRMI15.02, 23 December 2014).
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 1.Bozic KJ, Kamath AF, Ong K, Lau E, Kurtz S, Chan V, Vail TP, Rubash H, Berry DJ (2015) Comparative epidemiology of revision arthroplasty: failed THA poses greater clinical and economic burdens than failed TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 473:2131–2138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-014-4078-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 4.Nehme A, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD (2004) Modular porous metal augments for treatment of severe acetabular bone loss during revision hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 429:201–208. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000150133.88271.80 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.Konan S, Duncan CP, Masri BA, Garbuz DS (2016) Porous tantalum uncemented acetabular components in revision total hip arthroplasty: a minimum ten-year clinical, radiological and quality of life outcome study. Bone Joint J 98-B:767–771. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.98B6.37183 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 14.Blumenfeld TJ, Meehan J (2014) The use of augment devices in revision acetabular surgery. JBJS reviews 2(3). https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.RVW.M.00069
- 16.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 Orthop Relat Res 243:126–137Google Scholar
- 18.Singh JA, Schleck C, Harmsen S, Lewallen D (2016) Clinically important improvement thresholds for Harris Hip score and its ability to predict revision risk after primary total hip arthroplasty. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 17:256. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-016-1106-8 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 20.DeLee JG, Charnley J (1976) Radiological demarcation of cemented sockets in total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 121:20–32Google Scholar