, Volume 97, Issue 1, pp 31–37 | Cite as

The Burch-Schneider antiprotrusio cage: medium follow-up results

  • J. Lamo-Espinosa
  • J. Duart Clemente
  • P. Díaz-Rada
  • J. Pons-Villanueva
  • J. R. Valentí-Nín
Original Article


With the development of hip prosthesis, younger patients may need more than one revision surgery, with less bone stock available in each subsequent surgery. We retrospectively reviewed the hip revision surgeries in which a Burch-Schneider device has been used. Patients were classified according to the Paprosky score. Functional and clinical evaluation was assessed by the Merlé-Daubigné score. Radiolucencies were assessed by Gill’s criteria. Sixteen patients with a mean age of 66.1 years were reviewed at a mean follow-up of 60.7 months. According to Paprosky classification, 18.7 % were grade IIb, 56.3 % grade IIIa and 25 % grade IIIb. The mean Merlé-Daubigné score improved from 10 to 15 points. Radiologically, 12 patients had no radiolucencies, two had grade I radiolucencies and two had grade III radiolucencies. In greater than 50 % of acetabular defects, the Burch-Schneider seems to be useful providing clinical and functional improvement. Immediately, non-progressive radiolucencies are not associated with implant loosening at the end of follow-up. The ischial flap should be inserted inside the ischial portion of the acetabulum.


Burch-Schneider Acetabular defects Massive bone loss Hip revision surgery 


Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Jasty M, Harris WH (1990) Salvage total hip reconstruction in patients with major acetabular bone deficiency using structural femoral head allografts. J Bone Joint Surg Br 72:63–67PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Salvati EA, Bullough P, Wilson PD Jr (1975) Intrapelvic protrusion of the acetabular component following total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 111:212–227PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jasty M, Harris WH (1988) Results of total hip reconstruction using acetabular mesh in patients with central acetabular deficiency. Clin Orthop Relat Res 237:142–149PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Eftekhar NS, Nercessian O (1990) Intrapelvic migration of total hip prostheses. Operative treatment. J Bone Joint Surg Am 71:1480–1486 Erratum in: J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 1990;72: 310Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Udomkiat P, Dorr LD, Won YY, Longjohn D, Wan Z (2001) Technical factors for success with metal ring acetabular reconstruction. J Arthroplasty 16:961–969PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Padgett DE, Kull L, Rosenberg A, Sumner DR, Galante JO (1993) Revision of the acetabular component without cement after total hip arthroplasty. Three to six-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 75:663–673PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Garcia-Cimbrelo E (1999) Porous-coated cementless acetabular cups in revision surgery: a 6- to 11-year follow-up study. J Arthroplasty 14:397–406PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chen WM, Engh CA Jr, Hopper RH Jr, McAuley JP, Engh CA (2000) Acetabular revision with use of a bilobed component inserted without cement in patients who have acetabular bone-stock deficiency. J Bone Joint Surg Am 82:197–206PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Berry DJ, Sutherland CJ, Trousdale RT, Colwell CW Jr, Chandler HP, Ayres D, Yashar AA (2000) Bilobed oblong porous coated acetabular components in revision total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 371:154–160PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Moskal JT, Shen FH (2004) The use of bilobed porous-coated acetabular components without structural bone graft for type III acetabular defects in revision total hip arthroplasty: a prospective study with a minimum 2-year follow-up. J Arthroplasty 19:867–873PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hendricks KJ, Harris WH (2006) High placement of noncemented acetabular components in revision total hip arthroplasty. A concise follow-up, at a minimum of fifteen years, of a previous report. J Bone Joint Surg Am 88:2231–2236PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Muller ME (1981) Acetabular revision. The Hip. In: Proceedings of 9th meeting of the Hip Society. St Louis pp 46–56Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Berry DJ (2004) Antiprotrusio cages for acetabular revision. Clin Orthop Relat Res 420:106–112PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gross AE, Wong P, Saleh KJ (2002) Don’t throw away the ring: indications and use. J Arthroplasty 17(4 Suppl 1):162–166PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Berry DJ (1995) Acetabular anti-protrusio rings and cages in revision total hip arthroplasty. Semin Arthroplasty 6:68–75PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Paprosky WG, Perona PG, Lawrence JM (1994) Acetabular defect classification and surgical reconstruction in revision arthroplasty. A 6-year follow-up evaluation. J Arthroplasty 9:33–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    D’aubigne RM, Postel M (1954) Functional results of hip arthroplasty with acrylic prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 36:451–475PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gill TJ, Sledge JB, Müller ME (1998) The Bürch-Schneider anti-protrusio cage in revision total hip arthroplasty: indications, principles and long-term results. J Bone Joint Surg Br 80:946–953PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    DeLee JG, Charnley J (1976) Radiological demarcation of cemented sockets in total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 121:20–32PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Amstutz HC, Ma SM, Jinnah RH, Mai L (1982) Revision of aseptic loose total hip arthroplasties. Clin Orthop Relat Res 170:21–33PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Slooff TJ, Buma P, Schreurs BW, Schimmel JW, Huiskes R, Gardeniers J (1996) Acetabular and femoral reconstruction with impacted graft and cement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 324:108–115PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Garbuz D, Morsi E (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 78:693–697PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Haentjens P, de Boeck H, Handelberg F, Casteleyn PP, Opdecam P (1993) Cemented acetabular reconstruction with the Müller support ring. A minimum five-year clinical and roentgenographic follow-up study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 290:225–235PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schatzker J, Glynn MK, Ritter D (1984) A preliminary review of the Müller acetabular and Burch-Schneider antiprotrusio support rings. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 103:5–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zehntner MK, Ganz R (1994) Midterm results (5.5–10 years) of acetabular allograft reconstruction with the acetabular reinforcement ring during total hip revision. J Arthroplasty 9:469–479PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rosson J, Schatzker J (1992) The use of reinforcement rings to reconstruct deficient acetabula. J Bone Joint Surg Br 74:716–720PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Berry DJ, Müller ME (1992) Revision arthroplasty using an anti-protrusio cage for massive acetabular bone deficiency. J Bone Joint Surg Br 74:711–715PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sembrano JN, Cheng EY (2008) Acetabular cage survival and analysis of factors related to failure. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466:1657–1665PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    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(904):906–913Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gaiani L, Bertelli R, Palmonari M, Vicenzi G (2009) Total hip arthroplasty revision in elderly people with cement and Burch-Schneider anti-protrusio cage. Chir Organi Mov 93:15–19PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Regis D, Magnan B, Sandri A, Bartolozzi P (2008) Long-term results of anti-protrusion cage and massive allografts for the management of periprosthetic acetabular bone loss. J Arthroplasty 6:826–832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Winter E, Piert M, Volkmann R, Maurer F, Eingartner C, Weise K, Weller S (2001) Allogeneic cancellous bone graft and a Burch-Schneider ring for acetabular reconstruction in revision hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 83:862–867PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Azuma T, Yasuda H, Okagaki K, Sakai K (1994) Compressed allograft chips for acetabular reconstruction in revision hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 76:740–744PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kondo K, Nagaya I (1993) Bone incorporation of frozen femoral head allograft in revision total hip replacement. Nihon Seikeigeka Gakkai Zasshi 67:408–416PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Peters CL, Curtain M, Samuelson KM (1995) Acetabular revision with the Burch-Schnieder antiprotrusio cage and cancellous allograft bone. J Arthroplasty 10:307–312PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Saleh KJ, Jaroszynski G, Woodgate I, Saleh L, Gross AE (2000) Revision total hip arthroplasty with the use of structural acetabular allograft and reconstruction ring: a case series with a 10-year average follow-up. J Arthroplasty 15:951–958PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hoell S, Dedy N, Gosheger G, Dieckmann R, Daniilidis K, Hardes J (2012) The Burch-Schneider cage for reconstruction after metastatic destruction of the acetabulum: outcome and complications. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 132:405–410PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Coscujuela-Mañá A, Angles F, Tramunt C, Casanova X (2010) Burch-Schneider antiprotrusio cage for acetabular revision: a 5- to 13-year follow-up study. Hip Int 27(S7):112–118Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Böhm P, Banzhaf S (1999) Acetabular revision with allograft bone. 103 revisions with 3 reconstruction alternatives, followed for 0.3-13 years. Acta Orthop Scand 70:240–249PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    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 27:1057–1063PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Jones L, Grammatopoulos G, Singer G (2012) The Burch-Schneider cage: 9-year survival in Paprosky type 3 acetabular defects. Clinical and radiological follow-up. Hip Int 22:28–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Blacha J, Gagała J (2004) The Burch-Schneider antiprotrusio cage in revision hip arthroplasty with acetabular bone defect. Ortop Traumatol Rehabil 30:631–637Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    van Koeveringe AJ, Ochsner PE (2002) Revision cup arthroplasty using Burch-Schneider anti-protrusio cage. Int Orthop 26:291–295PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Istituti Ortopedici Rizzoli 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Lamo-Espinosa
    • 1
  • J. Duart Clemente
    • 1
  • P. Díaz-Rada
    • 1
  • J. Pons-Villanueva
    • 1
  • J. R. Valentí-Nín
    • 1
  1. 1.Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology DepartmentClínica Universidad de NavarraPamplonaSpain

Personalised recommendations