Antiprotrusio Cages for Acetabular Revision

  • Antonio CoscujuelaEmail author
  • Jose Luis Agullo
  • Daniel Rodriguez-Perez


Addressing deficient acetabular bone stock is one of the most challenging aspects of revision total hip arthroplasty. Many different techniques have been described to restore acetabular bone stock and achieve stable cup fixation. Previous reports on the short- and medium-term results of acetabular revision with antiprotusio cages for different osseous defects have been promising. Now, with over 30 years of experience in its use, long-term clinical and radiographic follow-up data have been published. The data are also encouraging with regard to implant survival and patient satisfaction. Controversy remains as to when these devices should be used and which design is best indicated for specific patterns of acetabular bone deficiency. The best types of bone graft to use in reconstructing the acetabulum remains controversial as well. Despite these controversies, it appears that antiprotusio cages for acetabular revision are valuable in dealing with different acetabular deficiencies.


Acetabular revision Bone defects Burch-Schneider antiprotrusio cage Total hip arthroplasty 


  1. 1.
    Pagnano MW, Hanssen AD, Lewallen DG, Shaughnessy WJ. The effect of superior placement of the acetabular component on the rate of loosening after total hip arthroplasty: long-term results in patients who have Crowe type-II congenital dysplasia of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1996;78A:1004–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berry DJ, Müller ME. Revision arthroplasty using an atiprotusio cage for masive acetabular bone deficiency. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1992;74B:711–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Slooff TJJH, Huiskes R, Van Horn J, Lemmens AJ. Bone grafting in total hip replacement for acetabular protrusion. Acta Orthop Scand. 1984;55:593–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Slooff TJJH, Schimmel JW, Buma P. Cemented fixation with bone grafts. Orthop Clin North Am. 1993;24:667–77.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hungerford DS, Jones LC. The rationale of cementless revision of cemented arthroplasty failures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988;235:12–24.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Müller ME. Acetabular revision. In: The hip. Proc 9th meeting of the hip society. St Louis: CV Mosby; 1981. p. 45–56.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hanssen AD, Lewallen DG. Modular acetabular augments: composite void fillers. Orthopedics. 2005;28:971–2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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;429:201–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Weeden SH, Schmidt RH. The use of tantalum porous implants for Paprosky 3A and 3B defects. J Arthroplast. 2007;22:151–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Flecher A, Sporer S, Paprosky W. Management of severe bone loss in acetabular revision using a trabecular metal shell. J Arthroplast. 2008;23:949–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lakstein D, Backstein D, Safir O, Kosashvili Y, Gross AE. Trabecular metal™ cups for acetabular defects with 50% or loss host bone cement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467:2318–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schneider R. Total prosthetic replacement of the hip: a biomechanical concept and its consequences. Toronto: Hans Huber; 1989.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Berry DJ. Antiprotusio cages for acetabular revision. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;420:106–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Possai KW, Dorr LD, McPherson EJ. Metal ring supports for deficient acetabular bone in total hip replacement. In: Pritchard DJ, editor. Instr course lect, vol. 45. Rosemont: AAOS; 1996. p. 161–9.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Peters CL, Curtain M, Samuelson KM. Acetabular revision with the Burch-Schneider antiprotusio cage and cancellous allograft bone. J Arthroplast. 1995;10:307–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rosson J, Schatzker J. The use of reinforcement rings to reconstruct deficient acetabula. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1992;74B:270–5.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Berry DJ. Acetabular anti-protusio rings in revision total hip arthroplasty. Sem Arthroplasty. 1995;6:68–75.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gross AE, Wong P, Saleh KJ. Don’t throw away the ring: Indications and use. J Arthroplast. 2002;17(4 Suppl 1):162–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lavernia CJ, Cook CC, Hernandez RA, Sierra RJ, Rossi MD. Neurovascular injuries in acetabular reconstruction cage surgery: an anatomical study. J Arthroplast. 2007 Jan;22(1):124–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Paprosky WG, Perona PG, Lawrence JM. Acetabular defect classification and surgical reconstruction in revision arthroplasty. A 6-year follow-up evaluation. J Arthroplast. 1994;9:33–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Merle d’Aubigné R, Postel M. Functional results of hip arthroplasty with acrylic prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1954;36A:451–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Johnston RC, Fitzgerald RH Jr, Harris WH, Poss R, Muller ME, Sledge CB. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of total hip replacement: a standard system of terminology for reporting results. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1990;72A:161–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pupparo F, Engh CA. Comparison of porous-threaded and smooth-threaded acetabular components of identical design. Two-to four-year results. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1991;271:201–6.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    DeLee JG, Charnley J. Radiological demarcation of cemented sockets in total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1976;121:20–32.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nunn D, Freeman MAR, Hill PF, Evans SJW. The measurement of migration of the acetabular component of hip prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1989;71B:629–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gill TJ, Sledge JB, Muller ME. The Burch-Schneider anti-protrusio cage in revision total hip arthroplasty: indications, principles and long-term results. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1998;80B:946–53.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gerber SD, Harris WH. Femoral head autografting to augment acetabular deficiency in patients requiring total hip replacement: a minimum five-year and an average seven-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg. 1986;68A:1241–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kaplan EL, Meier P. Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observation. J Am Stat Assoc. 1958;53:457–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Udomkiat P, Dorr LD, Won YY, Longjohn D, Wan Z. Technical factors for success with metal ring acetabular reconstruction. J Arthroplast. 2001;16:961–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Padgett DE, Kull L, Rosenberg A, Sumner DR, Galante JO. Revision of the acetabular component without cement after total hiparthroplasty. Three to six-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993;75A:663–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tanzer M, Drucker D, Jasty M, McDonald M, Harris WH. Revision of the acetabular component with an uncemented Harris-Galante porous-coated prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1992;74A:987–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Paprosky WG, Magnus RE. Principles of bone grafting in revision total hip arthroplasty: acetabular technique. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994;298:147–55.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kwong LM, Jasty M, Harris WH. High failure rate of bulk femoral head allografts in total hip acetabular reconstructions at 10 years. J Arthroplast. 1993;8:341–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hooten JP Jr, Engh CA Jr, Engh CA. Failure of structural acetabular allografts in cementless revision hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1994;76B:419–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Garbuz D, Morsi E, Gross A. 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. 1996;78A:693–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Garcia-Cimbrelo E. Porous-coated cementless acetabular cups in revision surgery. A 6- to 11-year follow-up study. J Arthroplast. 1999;14:397–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Brooks PJ. The jumbo cup: the 95% solution. Orthopedics. 2008;31:971–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hendricks KJ, Harris WH. 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. 2006;88A:2231–6.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Berry DJ, Sutherland CJ, Trousdale RT, Colwell CW Jr, Chandler HP, Ayres D, et al. Bilobed oblong porous coated acetabular components in revision total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000;371:154–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Chen WM, Engh CA Jr, Hooper 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;82A:197–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Moskal JT, Shen FH. The use of bilobed porous-coated acetabular components without structural bone graft for type III acetabular defects in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2004;19:867–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Gill TJ, Sledge JB, Muller ME. The management of sever acetabular bone loos using structural allograft and acetabular reinforcement devices. J Arthroplast. 2000;15:1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Zehntner MK, Ganz R. Midterm results (5.5–10 years) of acetabular allograft reconstruction with the acetabular reinforcement ring during total hip revision. J Arthroplast. 1994;9:469–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Watchtl SW, Jung M, Jakob RP, et al. The Burch-Schneider anti-protusio cage in acetabular revisión surgery; a mean follow-up of 12 years. J Arthroplast. 2000;15:959–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Pieringer H, Auersperg V, Böhler N. Reconstruction of severe acetabular bone-deficiency: the Burch-Schneider antiprotrusio cage in primary and revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2006;21(4):489–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    van der Linde M, Tonino A. Acetabular revisión with impacted grafting and a reinforcement ring: 42 patients followed for a mean of 10 years. Acta Orthop Scand. 2001;72:221–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Winter E, Piert M, Volkmann R, Maurer F, Eingartner C, Weise K, et al. Allogeneic cancellous bone graft and a Burch-Schneider ring for acetabular reconstruction in revision hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83-A:862–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Regis D, Sandri A, Ingrid Bonetti I. Acetabular reconstruction with the Burch-Schneider antiprotrusio cage and bulk allografts: minimum 10-year follow-up results. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:194076., 9 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Schneider L, Philippot R, Boyer B, Farizon F. Revision total hip arthroplasty using a reconstruction cage device and a cemented dual mobility cup. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2011;97:807–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Goodman S, Saastamoinen H, Shasha N, Gross A. Complicationsof ilioischial reconstruction rings in revision total hiparthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2004;19:436–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Regis D, Sandri A, Bonetti I, Bortolami O, Bartolozzi P. A minimum of 10-year follow-up of the Burch-Schneider cage and bulk allografts for the revision of pelvic discontinuity. J Arthroplast. 2012;27(6):1057–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Vigdorchik JM, Yoon RS, Gilbert SL, Lipman JD, Bostrom MP. Retrieval and radiographic analysis of the Contour antiprotusio cage. Hip Int. 2017;27(4):378–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Bostrom MP, Lehman AP, Buly RL, Lyman S, Nestor BJ. Acetabular revision with the Contour antiprotrusio cage: 2- to 5-year follow up. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;453:188–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Hosny HAH, El-Bakoury A, Fekry H, Keenan J. Mid-term results of graft augmentation prosthesis II cage and impacted allograft bone in revision hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2017. pii: S0883–5403(17)31065–3.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Beckmann NA, Weiss S, Klotz MC, Gondan M, Jaeger S, Bitsch RG. Loosening after acetabular revision: comparison of trabecular metal and reinforcement rings. Asystematic review. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(1):229–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Mäkinen T, Kuzyk P, Safir O, Backstein D, Gross AE. Role of cages in revision arthroplasty of the acetabulum. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016;98:233–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antonio Coscujuela
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jose Luis Agullo
    • 1
  • Daniel Rodriguez-Perez
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and TraumaHospital Universitari de Bellvitge, L’Hospitalet de Llobregat (Barcelona)BarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations