Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Structural allograft and primary press-fit cup for severe acetabular deficiency

A minimum 6-year follow-up study

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Between October 1992 and December 1996, 23 patients with pelvic bone stock deficiency involving major columns underwent revision surgery with a cementless press-fit cup and a structural bone graft. Twenty cases were followed up for a minimum of 6 (average 7.6, range 6–11) years. Three cups were revised: one for aseptic loosening, one for septic loosening, and one for recurrent dislocation. At latest follow-up, the average Merle d’Aubigné hip score improved from 10.9 to 16.2; four hips were rated excellent, seven very good, three good, two fair, and one poor. All cups were stable; the grafts were integrated and anatomy was restored. The Kaplan–Meier cumulative probability of not having revision for loosening at 11 years, predicted a survival rate of 84.4%. We are confident that these results are satisfactory for a very demanding procedure.

Résumé

Entre octobre 1992 et décembre 1996, 23 malades avec une perte de substance du bassin atteignant les colonnes du cotyle, ont subi une révision chirurgicale avec une cupule acétabulaire sans ciment et une greffe d’os structurelle. Vingt cas ont été suivis pendant un minimum de 6 ans (moyenne 7,6, écart 6–11); Trois cupules ont été révisées, une pour descellement aseptique, un pour descellement septique, et une pour luxation récidivante. Àu dernier recul, le score de Merle d’Aubigné s’est, en moyenne, amélioré de 10,9 à 16,2; le résultat a été estimé excellent pour 4 hanches, très bon pour 7, bon pour 3, moyen pour 2, et mauvais pour 1. Toutes les cupules étaient stables, les greffes étaient intégrées et l’anatomie restaurée. Le taux de survie selon Kaplan Meier, en prenant comme élément la révision pour descellement est de 84,4% à 11 ans. Nous considérons ces résultats comme satisfaisants pour une procédure très exigeante.

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.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Avci S, Connors N, Petty W (1998) 2- to 10-year follow-up study of acetabular revisions using allograft bone to repair bone defects. J Arthroplast 13:61–69

    Google Scholar 

  2. Berry DJ, Sutherland CJ, Trousdale RT, Colwell CW Jr, Chandler HP, Ayres D, Yashar AA (2000) Bilobed oblong porous coated acetabular components in revision total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 371:154–160

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bohm P, Banzhaf S (1999) Acetabular revision with allograft bone: 103 revisions with 3 reconstruction alternatives, followed for 0.3–13 years. Acta Orthop Scand 70:240–249

    Google Scholar 

  4. D’Antonio JA, Capello WN, Borden LS, Bargar WL, Bierbaum BF, Boettcher WG, Steinberg ME, Stulberg SD, Wedge JH (1989) Classification and management of acetabular abnormalities in total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 243:126–137

    Google Scholar 

  5. Dearborn JT, Harris WH (1999) 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 81:469–480

    Google Scholar 

  6. Gates HS III, McCollum DE, Poletti SC, Nunley JA (1990) Bone-grafting in total hip arthroplasty for protrusio acetabuli: a follow-up note. J Bone Joint Surg Am 72:248–251

    Google Scholar 

  7. Gill TJ, Sledge JB, Muller ME (2000) The management of severe acetabular bone loss using structural allograft and acetabular reinforcement devices. J Arthroplast 15:1–7

    Google Scholar 

  8. Gross AE, Allan DG, Catre M, Garbuz DS, Stockley I (1993) Bone grafts in hip replacement surgery: the pelvic side. Orthop Clin North Am 24:679–695

    Google Scholar 

  9. Gross AE, Blackley H, Wong P, Saleh K, Woodgate I (2002) The role of allografts in revision arthroplasty of the hip. Instr Course Lect 51:103–113

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gurney B, Mermier C, Robergs R, Gibson A, Rivero D (2001) Effects of limb-length discrepancy on gait economy and lower-extremity muscle activity in older adults. J Bone Joint Surg Am 83:907–915

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hooten JP Jr, Engh CA Jr, Engh CA (1994) Failure of structural acetabular allografts in cementless revision hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 76:419–422

    Google Scholar 

  12. Kerboull M, Hamadouche M, Kerboull L (2000) The Kerboull acetabular reinforcement device in major acetabular reconstructions. Clin Orthop 378:155–168

    Google Scholar 

  13. Koster G, Willert HG, Kohler HP, Dopkens K (1998) An oblong revision cup for large acetabular defects: design rationale and two-to seven-year follow-up. J Arthroplast 13:559–569

    Google Scholar 

  14. Kwong LM, Jasty M, Harris WH (1993) High failure rate of bulk femoral head allografts in total hip acetabular reconstructions at 10 years. J Arthroplast 8:341–346

    Google Scholar 

  15. Pagnano W, Hanssen AD, Lewallen DG, Shaughnessy WJ (1996) The effect of superior placement of the acetabular component on the rate of loosening after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 78:1004–1014

    Google Scholar 

  16. Pitto RP, Di Muria GV, Hohmann D (1998) Impaction grafting and acetabular reinforcement in revision hip replacement. Int Orthop 22:161–164

    Google Scholar 

  17. Saleh KJ, Jaroszynski G, Woodgate I, Saleh L, Gross AE (2000) Revision total hip arthroplasty with the use of structural acetabular allograft and reconstruction ring: a case series with a 10-year average follow-up. J Arthroplast 15:951–958

    Google Scholar 

  18. Shinar AA, Harris WH (1997) 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 79:159–168

    Google Scholar 

  19. Silverton CD, Rosenberg AG, Sheinkop MB, Kull LR, Galante JO (1995) Revision total hip arthroplasty using a cementless acetabular component: technique and results. Clin Orthop 319:201–208

    Google Scholar 

  20. Stiehl JB, Saluja R, Diener T (2000) Reconstruction of major column defects and pelvic discontinuity in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 15:849–857

    Google Scholar 

  21. Van Koeveringe AJ, Ochsner PE (2002) Revision cup arthroplasty using Burch–Schneider anti-protrusio cage. Int Orthop 26:291–295

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  23. Woodgate IG, Saleh KJ, Jaroszynski G, Agnidis Z, Woodgate MM, Gross AE (2000) Minor column structural acetabular allografts in revision hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 371:75–85

    Google Scholar 

  24. Woolson ST, Adamson GJ (1996) Acetabular revision using a bone-ingrowth total hip component in patients who have acetabular bone stock deficiency. J Arthroplast 11(6):661–667

    Google Scholar 

  25. Zmolek JC, Dorr LD (1993) Revision total hip arthroplasty: the use of solid allograft. J Arthroplast 8:361–370

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to F. Traina.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Traina, F., Giardina, F., De Clerico, M. et al. Structural allograft and primary press-fit cup for severe acetabular deficiency. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 29, 135–139 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-005-0640-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-005-0640-z

Keywords

Navigation