Modular Tantalum Augments for Acetabular Defects in Revision Hip Arthroplasty
- 601 Downloads
Large acetabular defects can be reconstructed with various methods depending on size and location of the defect. We prospectively followed our first 37 patients in whom we reconstructed the acetabulum with a trabecular metal augment combined with a trabecular metal shell. Three patients died before completing the minimum 24 months followup while the remaining 34 were followed a minimum of 24 months (mean, 34 months; range, 24–55 months). All defects were classified according to Paprosky. Radiographic signs of osseointegration were classified according to Moore. Quality of life was measured with the SF-12, WOMAC, and Oxford Hip Score. There were 15 men and 19 women with an average age of 64 years. At a minimum of two years followup 32 of the 34 patients required no further surgery for aseptic loosening, while two had rerevision. Of the 32 patients who had not been revised, all had stable cups radiographically. All quality-of-life parameters improved. The early results with tantalum augments are promising but longer followup is required.
Level of Evidence: Level IV, therapeutic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
KeywordsTrabecular Metal Acetabular Defect Acetabular Reconstruction Structural Allograft Acetabular Shell
- 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
- 3.Bobyn JD, Poggie RA, Krygier JJ, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD, Lewis RJ, Unger AS, O’Keefe, TJ, Christie MJ, Nasser S, Wood JE, Stulberg SD, Tanzer M. Clinical validation of a structural porous tantalum biomaterial for adult reconstruction. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86(Suppl 2):123–129.Google Scholar
- 17.Paprosky WG, Perona PG, Lawrence JM. Acetabular defect classification and surgical reconstruction in revision arthroplasty. A 6-year follow-up evaluation. J Arthroplasty. 1994;9:33–44.Google Scholar