Advertisement

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research

, Volume 466, Issue 7, pp 1657–1665 | Cite as

Acetabular Cage Survival and Analysis of Factors Related to Failure

  • Jonathan N. Sembrano
  • Edward Y. Cheng
Original Article Hip

Abstract

The reported results of acetabular cage reconstruction for pelvic deficiency are widely variable. Our primary question was: what is the survivorship of cage reconstruction with a primary end point of cage revision and secondary end points of radiographic loosening and any reoperation? Secondary questions were: which factors predict cage failure, and what is the functional outcome (SF-36, WOMAC, Harris hip score) of this reconstructive method? We reviewed 72 cage reconstructions in 68 patients. Minimum followup was 1.2 years (mean, 5.1 years; range, 1.2–10.7 years). Five-year cage revision-free survivorship was 87.8%. Five-year loosening-free and acetabular reoperation-free survivorships were 80.7% and 81.3%, respectively. No single preoperative factor (age, gender, severity of pelvic defect, degree of heterotopic ossification, difference in limb lengths and centers of rotation) or intraoperative factor (type of bone graft, type of cage, changes in limb length and center of rotation) predicted cage failure. Functional outcomes were 28.9 (SF-36 Physical Component), 52.4 (SF-36 Mental Component), 33.7 (WOMAC), and 44.2 (Harris). We judged these outcomes acceptable for this sometimes challenging problem. Future techniques for treating pelvic deficiency will need to be compared with these and other outcomes in the literature.

Level of Evidence: Level IV, therapeutic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Keywords

Bone Graft Heterotopic Ossification Trabecular Metal WOMAC Index Radiographic Loosening 
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.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Paul Lender for help on the construction of the database and statistical analysis and Nancy Borgstrom, Barbara Lace-Langdon, and Claire Lewandowski for help in contacting the patients in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW. Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol. 1988;15:1833–1840.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bellamy N, Goldsmith CH, Buchanan WW, Campbell J, Duku E. Prior score availability: observations using the WOMAC osteoarthritis index. Br J Rheumatol. 1991;30:150–151.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berry DJ. Antiprotrusio cages for acetabular revision. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;420:106–112.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berry DJ, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD, Cabanela ME. Pelvic discontinuity in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999;81:1692–1702.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Berry DJ, Müller ME. Revision arthroplasty using an anti-protrusio cage for massive acetabular bone deficiency. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1992;74:711–715.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Böhm P, Banzhaf S. Acetabular revision with allograft bone: 103 revisions with 3 reconstruction alternatives, followed for 0.3–13 years. Acta Orthop Scand. 1999;70:240–249.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brooker AF, Bowerman JW, Robinson RA, Riley LH Jr. Ectopic ossification following total hip replacement: incidence and a method of classification. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1973;55:1629–1632.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chen WM, Engh CA Jr, Hopper RH Jr, McAuley JP, Engh CA. Acetabular revision with use of a bilobed component inserted without cement in patients who have acetabular bone-stock deficiency. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000;82:197–206.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Christie MJ, Barrington SA, Brinson MF, Ruhling ME, DeBoer DK. Bridging massive acetabular defects with the triflange cup: 2- to 9-year results. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;393:216–227.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    D’Antonio JA, Capello WN, Borden LS, Bargar WL, Bierbaum BF, Boettcher WG, Steinberg ME, Stulberg SD, Wedge JH. Classification and management of acetabular abnormalities in total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989;243:126–137.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dearborn JT, Harris WH. Acetabular revision arthroplasty using so-called jumbo cementless components: an average 7-year follow-up study. J Arthroplasty. 2000;15:8–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gill TJ, Sledge JB, Muller ME. Total hip arthroplasty with use of an acetabular reinforcement ring in patients who have congenital dysplasia of the hip: results at five to fifteen years. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998;80:969–979.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gill TJ, Sledge JB, Muller ME. The management of severe acetabular bone loss using structural allograft and acetabular reinforcement devices. J Arthroplasty. 2000;15:1–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Goodman S, Saastamoinen H, Shasha N, Gross A. Complications of ilioischial reconstruction rings in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2004;19:436–446.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gross AE. Restoration of acetabular bone loss 2005. J Arthroplasty. 2006;21(suppl 1):117–120.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gross AE, Goodman S. The current role of structural grafts and cages in revision arthroplasty of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;429:193–200.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gross AE, Wong P, Saleh KJ. Grafts and cages: managing massive bone loss. Orthopedics. 2000;23:973–974.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Harris WH. 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. 1969;51:737–755.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Joshi AB, Lee J, Christensen C. Results for a custom acetabular component for acetabular deficiency. J Arthroplasty. 2002;17:643–648.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nehme A, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD. Modular porous metal augments for treatment of severe acetabular bone loss during revision hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;429:201–208.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Paprosky W, Sporer S, O’Rourke MR. The treatment of pelvic discontinuity with acetabular cages. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;453:183–187.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Paprosky WG, Magnus RE. Principles of bone grafting in revision total hip arthroplasty: acetabular technique. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994;298:147–155.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Perka C, Ludwig R. Reconstruction of segmental defects during revision procedures of the acetabulum with the Burch-Schneider anti-protrusio cage. J Arthroplasty. 2001;16:568–574.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Peters CL, Curtain M, Samuelson KM. Acetabular revision with the Burch-Schneider antiprotrusio cage and cancellous allograft bone. J Arthroplasty. 1995;10:307–312.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pieringer H, Auersperg V, Bohler N. Reconstruction of severe acetabular bone-deficiency: the Burch-Schneider antiprotrusio cage in primary and revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2006;21:489–496.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ranawat CS, Dorr LD, Inglis AE. Total hip arthroplasty in protrusio acetabuli of rheumatoid arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1980;62:1059–1065.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rosson J, Schatzker J. The use of reinforcement rings to reconstruct deficient acetabula. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1992;74:716–720.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Russotti GM, Harris WH. Proximal placement of the acetabular component in total hip arthroplasty: a long-term follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1991;73:587–592.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Saleh KJ, Holtzman J, Gafni A, Saleh L, Davis A, Resig S, Gross AE. Reliability and intraoperative validity of preoperative assessment of standardized plain radiographs in predicting bone loss at revision hip surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83:1040–1046.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schutzer SF, Harris WH. High placement of porous-coated acetabular components in complex total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 1994;9:359–367.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sporer SM, Paprosky WG. The use of a trabecular metal acetabular component and trabecular metal augment for severe acetabular defects. J Arthroplasty. 2006;21(suppl 2):83–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sporer SM, Paprosky WG. Acetabular revision using a trabecular metal acetabular component for severe acetabular bone loss associated with a pelvic discontinuity. J Arthroplasty. 2006;21(suppl 2):87–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Stewart AL, Hays RD, Ware JE Jr. The MOS short-form general health survey. Reliability and validity in a patient population. Med Care. 1988;26:724–735.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Symeonides P, Petsatodes G, Pournaras J, Kapetanos G, Christodoulou A, Papadopoulos P. Replacement of deficient acetabulum using Burch-Schneider cages: 22 patients followed for 2–10 years. Acta Orthop Scand. 1997;275:30–32.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Udomkiat P, Dorr LD, Won YY, Longjohn D, Wan Z. Technical factors for success with metal ring acetabular reconstruction. J Arthroplasty. 2001;16:961–969.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Unger AS, Lewis RJ, Gruen T. Evaluation of a porous tantalum uncemented acetabular cup in revision total hip arthroplasty: clinical and radiological results of 60 hips. J Arthroplasty. 2005;20:1002–1009.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    van Koeveringe AJ, Ochsner PE. Revision cup arthroplasty using Burch-Schneider anti-protrusio cage. Int Orthop. 2002;26:291–295.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wachtl SW, Jung M, Jakob RP, Gautier E. The Burch-Schneider antiprotrusio cage in acetabular revision surgery: a mean follow-up of 12 years. J Arthroplasty. 2000;15:959–963.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30:473–483.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Whaley AL, Berry DJ, Harmsen WS. Extra-large uncemented hemispherical acetabular components for revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83:1352–1357.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Winter E, Piert M, Volkmann R, Maurer F, Eingartner C, Weise K, Weller S. Allogeneic cancellous bone graft and a Burch-Schneider ring for acetabular reconstruction in revision hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83:862–867.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations