Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

A preliminary review of the Müller acetabular and Burch-Schneider antiprotrusio support rings

  • Original Articles
  • Published:
Archives of orthopaedic and traumatic surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

A high incidence of acetabular loosening following total hip arthroplasty is emerging as long term follow-up studies become available. The Müller and Burch-Schneider acetabular supports are indicated for acetabular deficiencies which are frequently present during revision hip arthroplasty. The Burch-Schneider support is indicated where the deficiences are of such magnitude that the Müller ring does not have stable seating prior to screw fixation. These devices bring the resultant of forces across the hip joint under the acetabular roof and provide metal backing for the acetabular cup. They have the additional advantage of screw fixation which in the Müller ring is in line with the resultant of forces across the hip joint. In a one to three year follow-up of twenty-five hip replacements in twenty-four patients, the Müller support ring was used in twenty hips and the Burch-Schneider in five hips. The results were satisfactory and indicate that these supports are valuable in the treatment of patients with acetabular deficiencies.

Zusammenfassung

Ein häufiges Vorkommen von Pfannenlockerungen bei Hüftgelenk-Totalprothesen wird erkennbar, seitdem Langzeitbeobachtungen zur Verfügung stehen. Die Pfannen-Verstärkungsringe von Müller und Burch-Schneider sind indiziert bei mangelhaften Verankerungsbedingungen im Acetabulum, wie sie bei Prothesenauswechslungen häufig vorkommen. Der Burch-Schneider-Verstärkungsring ist angezeigt, wenn die Schädigung des Acetabulums so hochgradig ist, daß der Müller-Ring vor der Verschraubung keinen festen Halt findet. Diese Verschraubungsringe lenken die auf das Hüftgelenk einwirkenden Kräfte unter das Pfannendach und geben außerdem der Prothesenpfanne eine Metallverstärkung. Sie haben den zusätzlichen Vorteil der Schraubenfixation, wobei bei dem Müller-Ring die Schrauben in der Richtung der resultierenden Kräfte verlaufen, die auf das Hüftgelenk einwirken. In einer einbis dreijährigen Verlaufsuntersuchung von 25 Hüftgelenkprothesen bei 24 Patienten wurde der Verankerungsring von Müller bei 20 Hüften und der von Burch-Schneider bei 5 Hüften verwendet. Die Ergebnisse waren zufriedenstellend und zeigen, daß diese Verstärkungsringe bei mangelhaften Verankerungsbedingungen im Acetabulum wertvoll sind.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Andersson C, Freeman M, Swanson S (1972) Loosening of the cemented acetabular cup in total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 54:590–599

    Google Scholar 

  2. Charnley J (1979) Low friction arthroplasty of the hip. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York

    Google Scholar 

  3. Crownshield RD, Brand R, Pedersen D (1983) A stress analysis of acetabular reconstruction in protrusio acetabuli. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 65:495–499

    Google Scholar 

  4. DeLee J, Charnley J (1976) Radiological demarcation of cemented sockets in total hip replacement. Clin Orthop 121:20–32

    Google Scholar 

  5. Eichler J (1973) Über einen Stützring zur Verankerung der Kunstoffpfanne für die operative Behandlung der Protrusio acetabuli. Med Orthop Techn 93:28–31

    Google Scholar 

  6. Hardinge K (1982) The direct lateral approach to the hip. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 64:17–19

    Google Scholar 

  7. Harris WH (1969) Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 51:737–742

    Google Scholar 

  8. Harris WH, Jones WN (1975) The use of wire mesh in total hip replacement surgery. Clin Orthop 106:117–121

    Google Scholar 

  9. Hastings DE, Parker SM (1975) Protrusio acetabuli in rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Orthop 108:76–83

    Google Scholar 

  10. Indong OH, Harris W (1982) Design concepts, indications and surgical technique for use of the protrusio shell. Clin Orthop 162:175–188

    Google Scholar 

  11. McBroom R, Mueller M (1983) Aseptic loosening—fifteen years' experience with the Mueller total hip arthroplasty. Canadian Orthopaedic Association Meeting, Quebec

  12. Pauwles F (1976) Biomechanics of the normal and diseased hip. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York

    Google Scholar 

  13. Schatzker J (Unpublished data)

  14. Schatker J, Horne JG, Summer-Smith G (1975) The effect of movement of the holding power of screws in bone. Clin Orthop 111:257–262

    Google Scholar 

  15. Schatzker J, Hastings D, McBroom R (1979) Acetabular reinforcement in total hip replacement. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 94:135–141

    Google Scholar 

  16. Schatzker J, Sanderson E, Murnaghan J (1975) The holding power of orthopaedic screws in vivo. Clin Orthop 108:115–126

    Google Scholar 

  17. Sutherland C, Wilde A, Borden L, Marks K (1982) A ten-year follow-up of one hundred consecutive Müller curved stem total hip replacements arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 64:970–982

    Google Scholar 

  18. Wagner H (1962) Neue Osteosyntheseschrauben und ihre Gewebserträglichkeit. Verh Dtsch Orthop Ges 49:418

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schatzker, J., Glynn, M.K. & Ritter, D. A preliminary review of the Müller acetabular and Burch-Schneider antiprotrusio support rings. Arch. Orth. Traum. Surg. 103, 5–12 (1984). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00451312

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00451312

Keywords

Navigation