Reconstruction of failed acetabular component in the presence of severe acetabular bone loss: a systematic review
- 20 Downloads
Acetabular revision especially in the presence of severe bone loss is challenging. There is a paucity of literature critiquing contemporary techniques of revision acetabular reconstruction and their outcomes. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the literature and to report clinical outcomes and survival of contemporary acetabular revision arthroplasty techniques (tantalum metal shells, uncemented revision jumbo shells, reinforced cages and rings, oblong shells and custom-made triflange constructs). Full-text papers and those with an abstract in English published from January 2001 to January 2016 were identified through international databases. A total of 50 papers of level IV scientific evidence, comprising 2811 hips in total, fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included. Overall, patients had improved outcomes irrespective of the technique of reconstruction as documented by postoperative hip scores. Our pooled analysis suggests that oblong cups components had a lower failure rate compared with other different materials considered in this review. Custom-made triflange cups had one of highest failure rates. However, this may reflect the complexity of revisions and severity of bone loss. The most common postoperative complication reported in all groups was dislocation. This review confirms successful acetabular reconstructions using diverse techniques depending on the type of bone loss and highlights key features and outcomes of different techniques. In particular, oblong cups and tantalum shells have successful survivorship.
KeywordsAcetabular revision surgery Paprosky classification Hip revision surgery Acetabular defects Pelvic discontinuity
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
A. Volpin, S. Konan, C. Biz, R. J. Tansey declare that they have no conflict of interest. F. S. Haddad reports grants from Stryker and grants from Smith and Nephew, outside the submitted work.
- 4.Baauw M, van Hooff ML, Spruit M (2016) Current construct options for revision of large acetabular defects: a systematic review. JBJS Rev 4(11). https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.RVW.15.00119
- 19.Bilgen OF, Bilgen MS, Oncan T, Danis M (2012) Acetabular reconstruction by impacted cancellous allografts in cementless total hip arthroplasty revision. Acta Orthop Traumatol 46(2):120–125Google Scholar
- 24.Garcia-Rey E, Fernandez-Fernandez R, Duran D, Madero R (2013) Reconstruction of the rotation center of the hip after oblong cups in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Traumatol Off J Ital Soc Orthop Traumatol 14(1):39–49Google Scholar
- 25.Desai AS, Dramis A, Board TN, Hekal W, Farhan MJ (2012) Acetabular revision surgery with the uncemented oblong BOFOR Cup–early to midterm results. Hip Int J Clin Exp Res Hip Pathol Therapy 22(3):280–285Google Scholar
- 32.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 98(2):129–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 36.Akiyama H, Yamamoto K, Tsukanaka M, Kawanabe K, Otsuka H, So K et al (2011) Revision total hip arthroplasty using a Kerboull-type acetabular reinforcement device with bone allograft: minimum 4.5-year follow-up results and mechanical analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 93(9):1194–1200CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 38.Coscujuela-Mana 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 J Clin Exp Res Hip Pathol Therapy 20(Suppl 7):S112–S118Google Scholar
- 41.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 Joint Surg Br 91(7):870–876CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar