Skip to main content
Log in

Modular Tantalum Augments for Acetabular Defects in Revision Hip Arthroplasty

  • Symposium: Papers Presented at the Hip Society Meetings 2008
  • Published:
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research


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.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1A–B
Fig. 2A–E

Similar content being viewed by others


  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Black J. Biological performance of tantalum. Clin Mater. 1994;16:167–173.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google 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 

  4. Chen WM, Engh CA Jr, Hopper RH Jr, McAuley JP, Engh CA. Acetabular revision with use of a bilobed component inserted without cement in patients who have acetabular bone-stock deficiency. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000;82:197–206.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Christie MJ. Clinical applications of trabecular metal. Am J Orthop. 2002;31:219–220.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A, Murray D. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996;78:185–190.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Dearborn JT, Harris WH. High placement of an acetabular component inserted without cement in a revision total hip arthroplasty. Results after a mean of ten years. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999;81:469–480.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Dearborn JT, Harris WH. Acetabular revision arthroplasty using so-called jumbo cementless components: an average 7-year follow-up study. J Arthroplasty. 2000;15:8–15.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Dewal H, Chen F, Su E, Di Cesare PE. Use of structural bone graft with cementless acetabular cups in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2003;18:23–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Garbuz D. Revision total hip: a novel modular cementless acetabular system for reconstruction of severe acetabular bone loss. Operative Techniques in Orthopaedics. 2004;14:117–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Goodman S, Saastamoinen H, Shasha N, Gross A. Complications of ilioischial reconstruction rings in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2004;19:436–446.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Gross AE. Revision arthroplasty of the acetabulum with restoration of bone stock. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999;369:198–207.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Gross AE, Goodman S. The role of cages and rings: when all else fails. Orthopedics. 2004;27:969–970.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Gross AE, Goodman S. The current role of structural grafts and cages in revision arthroplasty of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;429:193–200.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Moore MS, McAuley JP, Young AM, Engh CA Sr. Radiographic signs of osseointegration in porous-coated acetabular components. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;444:176–183.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Nehme A, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD. Modular porous metal augments for treatment of severe acetabular bone loss during revision hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;429:201–208.

    Article  PubMed  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 

  18. Schreurs BW, Bolder SB, Gardeniers JW, Verdonschot N, Slooff TJ, Veth RP. Acetabular revision with impacted morsellised cancellous bone grafting and a cemented cup. A 15- to 20-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004;86:492–497.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Shinar AA, Harris WH. Bulk structural autogenous grafts and allografts for reconstruction of the acetabulum in total hip arthroplasty. Sixteen-year-average follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997;79:159–168.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Sporer SM, Paprosky WG. The use of a trabecular metal acetabular component and trabecular metal augment for severe acetabular defects. J Arthroplasty. 2006;21:83–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Templeton JE, Callaghan, JJ, Goetz DD, Sullivan PM, Johnston RC. Revision of a cemented acetabular component to a cementless acetabular component. A ten to fourteen-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83:1706–1711.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Unger AS, Lewis RJ, Gruen T. Evaluation of a porous tantalum uncemented acetabular cup in revision total hip arthroplasty: clinical and radiological results of 60 hips. J Arthroplasty. 2005;20:1002–1009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30:473–483.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Whaley AL, Berry DJ, Harmsen WS. Extra-large uncemented hemispherical acetabular components for revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83:1352–1357.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Donald S. Garbuz MD, MHSc.

Additional information

Each author certifies that he or she has no commercial associations (eg, consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article.

Each author certifies that his or her institution has approved the human protocol for this investigation, that all investigations were conducted in conformity with ethical principles of research, and that informed consent for participation in the study was obtained.

About this article

Cite this article

Siegmeth, A., Duncan, C.P., Masri, B.A. et al. Modular Tantalum Augments for Acetabular Defects in Revision Hip Arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467, 199–205 (2009).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: