Advertisement

Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery

, Volume 137, Issue 8, pp 1139–1148 | Cite as

Reconstruction of AAOS type III and IV acetabular defects with the Ganz reinforcement ring: high failure in pelvic discontinuity

  • Cynthia Hourscht
  • Mohammad K. Abdelnasser
  • Sufian S. AhmadEmail author
  • Lukas Kraler
  • Marius J. Keel
  • Klaus A. Siebenrock
  • Frank M. Klenke
Hip Arthroplasty

Abstract

Background

Large acetabular defects and pelvic discontinuity represent complex problems in revision total hip arthroplasty. This study aimed to investigate whether reconstruction with the Ganz reinforcement ring would provide durable function in large acetabular defects.

Patients and methods

46 hips (45 patients, 19 male, 26 female, mean age 68 years) with AAOS type III and IV defects undergoing acetabular revision with the Ganz reinforcement ring were evaluated at a mean follow-up of 74 months (24–161 months). Fourteen patients died during follow-up. All surviving patients were available for clinical assessment and radiographic studies. Radiographs were evaluated for bone healing and component loosening. A Cox-regression model was performed to identify factors influencing survival of the Ganz-ring.

Results

In the group of AAOS III defects, 3 of 26 acetabular reconstructions failed, all due to aseptic loosening. In pelvic discontinuity (AAOS IV), 9 of 20 hips failed due to aseptic loosening (n = 4), deep infection (n = 3), and non-union of the pelvic ring (n = 2). With acetabular revision for any reason as an endpoint, the estimated Kaplan–Meier 5-year survival was 86% in type III defects and 57% in type IV defects, respectively. The presence of pelvic discontinuity was identified as the only independent predictive factor for failure of the Ganz ring acetabular reconstruction (AAOS III vs. IV, Hazard ratio: 0.217, 95%, Confidence interval: 0.054–0.880, p = 0.032).

Conclusion

The Ganz reinforcement ring remains a favorable implant for combined segmental and cavitary defects. However, defects with pelvic discontinuity demonstrate high failure rates. The indications should therefore be narrowed to acetabular defects not associated with pelvic discontinuity.

Keywords

Ganz reinforcement ring Pelvic discontinuity Acetabular defect Bone loss Trabecular metal Cage Acetabular reconstruction Hip revision 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Funding

There is no funding source.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

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

References

  1. 1.
    Abolghasemian M, Tangsataporn S, Sternheim A, Backstein D, Safir O, Gross AE (2013) Combined trabecular metal acetabular shell and augment for acetabular revision with substantial bone loss: a mid-term review. Bone Jt J 95-B(2):166–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abolghasemian M, Sadeghi Naini M, Tangsataporn S, Lee P, Backstein D, Safir O et al (2014) Reconstruction of massive uncontained acetabular defects using allograft with cage or ring reinforcement: an assessment of the graft’s ability to restore bone stock and its impact on the outcome of re-revision. Bone Jt J 96-B(3):319–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Abolghasemian M, Tangsaraporn S, Drexler M, Barbuto R, Backstein D, Safir O et al (2014) The challenge of pelvic discontinuity: cup-cage reconstruction does better than conventional cages in mid-term. Bone Jt J 96-B(2):195–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Amenabar T, Rahman WA, Hetaimish BM, Kuzyk PR, Safir OA, Gross AE (2016) Promising mid-term results with a cup-cage construct for large acetabular defects and pelvic discontinuity. Clin Orthop Relat Res 474(2):408–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Berasi CC, Berend KR, Adams JB, Ruh EL, Lombardi AV Jr (2015) Are custom triflange acetabular components effective for reconstruction of catastrophic bone loss? Clin Orthop Relat Res 473(2):528–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Berry DJ, Muller ME (1992) Revision arthroplasty using an anti-protrusio cage for massive acetabular bone deficiency. J Bone Jt Surg Br 74(5):711–715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Berry DJ, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD, Cabanela ME (1999) Pelvic discontinuity in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Jt Surg Am 81(12):1692–1702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brown NM, Hellman M, Haughom BH, Shah RP, Sporer SM, Paprosky WG (2014) Acetabular distraction: an alternative approach to pelvic discontinuity in failed total hip replacement. Bone Jt J 96-B(11 Supple A):73–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Christie MJ, Barrington SA, Brinson MF, Ruhling ME, DeBoer DK (2001) Bridging massive acetabular defects with the triflange cup: 2- to 9-year results. Clin Orthop Relat Res 393:216–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    D’Antonio JA, Capello WN, Borden LS, Bargar WL, Bierbaum BF, Boettcher WG et al (1989) Classification and management of acetabular abnormalities in total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 243:126–137Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    DeBoer DK, Christie MJ, Brinson MF, Morrison JC (2007) Revision total hip arthroplasty for pelvic discontinuity. J Bone Jt Surg Am 89(4):835–840Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Eggli S, Muller C, Ganz R (2002) Revision surgery in pelvic discontinuity: an analysis of seven patients. Clin Orthop Relat Res 398:136–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Friedrich MJ, Schmolders J, Michel RD, Randau TM, Wimmer MD, Kohlhof H et al (2014) Management of severe periacetabular bone loss combined with pelvic discontinuity in revision hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop 38(12):2455–2461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gerber A, Pisan M, Zurakowski D, Isler B (2003) Ganz reinforcement ring for reconstruction of acetabular defects in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Jt Surg Am 85-A(12):2358–2364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gill TJ, Sledge JB, Muller ME (1998) The Burch-Schneider anti-protrusio cage in revision total hip arthroplasty: indications, principles and long-term results. J Bone Jt Surg Br 80(6):946–953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Goodman S, Saastamoinen H, Shasha N, Gross A (2004) Complications of ilioischial reconstruction rings in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 19(4):436–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Grappiolo G, Loppini M, Longo UG, Traverso F, Mazziotta G, Denaro V (2015) Trabecular metal augments for the management of Paprosky type III defects without pelvic discontinuity. J Arthroplast 30(6):1024–1029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Issack PS, Nousiainen M, Beksac B, Helfet DL, Sculco TP, Buly RL (2009) Acetabular component revision in total hip arthroplasty. Part II: management of major bone loss and pelvic discontinuity. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 38(11):550–556Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kmiec K, Dorman T, Andrzej G, Synder M, Kozlowski P, Sibinski M (2015) Early results of revision acetabular cup using antiprotrusio reconstruction rings and allografts. Indian J Orthop 49(3):317–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kokubo Y, Oki H, Sugita D, Negoro K, Takeno K, Miyazaki T et al (2016) Long-term clinical outcome of acetabular cup revision surgery: comparison of cemented cups, cementless cups, and cemented cups with reinforcement devices. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 26(4):407–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kosashvili Y, Backstein D, Safir O, Lakstein D, Gross AE (2009) Acetabular revision using an anti-protrusion (ilio-ischial) cage and trabecular metal acetabular component for severe acetabular bone loss associated with pelvic discontinuity. J Bone Jt Surg Br 91(7):870–876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Makinen TJ, Fichman SG, Watts E, Kuzyk PR, Safir OA, Gross AE (2016) The role of cages in the management of severe acetabular bone defects at revision arthroplasty. Bone Jt J 98-B(1 Suppl A):73–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Philippe R, Gosselin O, Sedaghatian J, Dezaly C, Roche O, Sirveaux F et al (2012) Acetabular reconstruction using morselized allograft and a reinforcement ring for revision arthroplasty with Paprosky type II and III bone loss: survival analysis of 95 hips after 5 to 13 years. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 98(2):129–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Regis D, Sandri A, Bonetti I, Bortolami O, Bartolozzi P (2012) A minimum of 10-year follow-up of the Burch-Schneider cage and bulk allografts for the revision of pelvic discontinuity. J Arthroplasty 27(6):1057–1063e1Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schlegel UJ, Bitsch RG, Pritsch M, Clauss M, Mau H, Breusch SJ (2006) Mueller reinforcement rings in acetabular revision: outcome in 164 hips followed for 2-17 years. Acta Orthop 77(2):234–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schlegel UJ, Bitsch RG, Pritsch M, Aldinger PR, Mau H, Breusch SJ (2008) Acetabular reinforcement rings in revision total hip arthroplasty: midterm results in 298 cases. Orthopade 37(9):904, 906–913Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schmolders J, Friedrich MJ, Michel RD, Randau TM, Wimmer MD, Strauss AC et al (2015) Acetabular defect reconstruction in revision hip arthroplasty with a modular revision system and biological defect augmentation. Int Orthop 39(4):623–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schreurs BW, Gardeniers JW, Slooff TJ (2001) Acetabular reconstruction with bone impaction grafting: 20 years of experience. Instr Course Lect 50:221–228PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sheth NP, Melnic CM, Paprosky WG (2014) Acetabular distraction: an alternative for severe acetabular bone loss and chronic pelvic discontinuity. Bone Jt J 96-B(11 Supple A):36–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Siebenrock KA, Tannast M, Kim S, Morgenstern W, Ganz R (2005) Acetabular reconstruction using a roof reinforcement ring with hook for total hip arthroplasty in developmental dysplasia of the hip-osteoarthritis minimum 10-year follow-up results. J Arthroplast 20(4):492–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Siegmeth A, Duncan CP, Masri BA, Kim WY, Garbuz DS (2009) Modular tantalum augments for acetabular defects in revision hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467(1):199–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sporer SM, Bottros JJ, Hulst JB, Kancherla VK, Moric M, Paprosky WG (2012) Acetabular distraction: an alternative for severe defects with chronic pelvic discontinuity? Clin Orthop Relat Res 470(11):3156–3163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Steno B, Kokavec M, Necas L (2015) Acetabular revision arthroplasty using trabecular titanium implants. Int Orthop 39(3):389–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Taunton MJ, Fehring TK, Edwards P, Bernasek T, Holt GE, Christie MJ (2012) Pelvic discontinuity treated with custom triflange component: a reliable option. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470(2):428–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    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 Relat Res 473(2):521–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Orthopedic SurgeryInselspital, Bern University HospitalBernSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations