Advertisement

International Orthopaedics

, Volume 10, Issue 4, pp 223–230 | Cite as

The Müller acetabular support ring

A preliminary review of indications and clinical results
  • P. Haentjens
  • F. Handelberg
  • P. P. Casteleyn
  • P. Opdecam
Article

Summary

A series of 41 total hip arthroplasties with acetabular reinforcement by a Müller support ring is reviewed. The postoperative management was the same as that used in conventional cemented total hip arthroplasty. The overall clinical results and the radiological findings were most satisfactory after one to six years. Of the 30 hips available for functional assessment using the Merle d'Aubigné scale, 16 were excellent, 10 good, 2 fair, 1 poor and 1 bad. These results indicate that, regardless of the primary disorder, the Müller support ring has been helpful when dealing with severe osteoporosis, an acetabular floor lined by bone which does not allow adequate penetration of methyl methacrylate, a small acetabulum needing a small polyethylene socket and localised destruction of the acetabular roof or of the anterior or posterior acetabular pillar. A good result can only be guaranteed if the ring makes a perfect fit with the reamed acetabular cavity.

Key words

Acetabulum Arthroplasty Hip Müller Ring 

Résumé

Les auteurs analysent une série de 41 prothèses totales de hanche ayant nécessité un renforcement par anneau de Müller. Les résultats cliniques de 30 prothèses, ayant un recul compris entre 1 et 6 ans ont été appréciés suivant les critères de Merle d'Aubigné. Le résultat global était excellent dans 16 cas, bon dans 10 cas, passable dans 2 cas et mauvais dans 1 cas. Moyennant une technique rigoureuse, l'anneau de Müller a permis de résoudre de manière satisfaisante les difficultés techniques posées par les problèmes cotyloïdiens suivants: ostéoporose sévère, os scléreux ne permettant pas une pénétration adéquate du ciment, taille du cotyle nécessitant une petite cupule de polyéthylène (diamètre externe de 44 ou moins), destruction localisée du toit, du pilier antérieur, ou du pilier postérieur.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Carter DR, Vasu R, Harris WH (1983) Periacetabular stress distributions after joint replacement with subchondral bone retention. Acta Orthop Scand 54: 29–35Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Charnley J (1979) Low friction arthroplasty of the hip. Theory and Practice. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Delee JG, Charnley J (1976) Radiological demarcation of cemented sockets in total hip replacement. Clin Orthop 121: 20–32Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Eichler J (1973) Ein Vorschlag zur operativen Behandlung der Protrusio acetabuli. Arch Orthop Unfallchir 75: 76–80Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Elson RA (1983) Bone-cement interlock in revision arthroplasty. In: Elson RA (ed) Revision arthroplasty 2. Franklin Scientific Publications, London, pp 79–83Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ganz R (1983) Bone grafting. In: Elson RA (ed) Revision arthroplasty 2, Franklin Scientific Publications, London, pp 96–100Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Harris WH (1982) Allografting in total hip arthroplasty in adults with severe acetabular deficiency including a surgical technique for bolting the graft to the ilium. Clin Orthop 162: 150–164Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Harris WH, Crother O, Oh I (1977) Total hip replacement and femoral head bone grafting for severe acetabular deficiency in adults. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 59-A: 752–759Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Harris WH, Jones WN (1975): The use of wire mesh in total hip replacement surgery. Clin Orthop 106: 117–121Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hastings DE, Parker SW (1975) Protrusio acetabuli in rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Orthop 108: 76–83Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Heywood AWB (1980) Arthroplasty with a solid bone graft for protrusio acetabuli. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 62-B: 332–336Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    McCollum DE, Nunley JA (1978) Bone grafting in acetabular protrusio: a biologic buttress. In the Hip: Proceedings of the Sixth Open Scientific Meeting of the Hip Society. CV Mosby, St Louis, pp 124–146Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Merle d'Aubigné R (1970) Cotation chiffrée de la fonction de la hanche. Rev Chir Orthop 56: 481–486Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Müller ME (1981) Acetabular revision. In the Hip: Proceedings of the Ninth Open Scientific Meeting of the Hip Society, CV Mosby, St Louis, pp 46–56Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Oh I, Harris WH (1982) Design concepts, indications, and surgical technique for use of the protrusio shell. Clin Orthop 162: 175–184Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Parker SM, Hastings DE (1974) Protrusio acetabuli in rheumatoid arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 56-B: 587Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ranawat CS, Dorr LD, Inglis AE (1980) Total hip arthroplasty in protrusio acetabuli of rheumatoid arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 62-A: 1059–1065Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schatzker J, Hastings DE, McBroom JR (1979) Acetabular reinforcement in total hip replacement. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 94: 135–141Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    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: 5–12Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schneider R (1980) Die Armierung der Pfanne bei der Totalendoprothese der Hüfte. Unfallheikunde 83: 482–488Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schneider R (1982) Die Totalprothese der Hüfte. In: Burri C, Herfarth Ch, Jäger M (eds) Aktuelle Probleme in Chirurgie und Orthopädie, Bd. 24. Hans Huber, Bern Stuttgart WienGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. Haentjens
    • 1
  • F. Handelberg
    • 1
  • P. P. Casteleyn
    • 1
  • P. Opdecam
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedics & TraumatologyAcademic Hospital V.U.B.BrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations