A NOVEL APPROACH TO IMPROVE IMPACTION BONE GRAFTING IN THE ACETABULUM

Abstract

Introduction: Revision hip surgery is predicted to rise significantly over the coming decades. There is therefore likely to be an increasing need to overcome the large bone loss and cavitatory defects encountered in failed primary hip replacements. Impaction bone grafting (IBG) is a recognised technique for replacing lost bone stock. Achieving optimal graft impaction is a difficult surgical skill with a significant learning curve, balancing the need to achieve sufficient compaction to provide primary stability versus the need to keep impaction forces to a minimum to prevent iatrogenic fracture. In this study we have developed a revision acetabular model to test the hypothesis that the use of vibration and drainage with a new custom made perforated tamp could reduce the peak stresses imparted to the acetabulum during the impaction process and also improve the reliability and reproducibility of the impaction technique

Methods: Composite Sawbone hemi Pelvis models were used, with identical contained cavitatory defects created (Paprosky Type 2a). A strain gauge was attached to the medial wall of each hemi pelvis. A custom set of IBG tamps were made, and coupled a pneumatic hammer used to generate the vibrations. A standard impaction technique was used for the control group and the new vibration impaction for the experimental group. The cavity was progressively filled with morsellised allograft in 6 set steps for both groups with strain gauge readings taken during all impaction to monitor peak stresses. A standard Exeter Contemporary cup was then cemented into the graft bed for both groups. The models were mechanically loaded according to the protocol developed by Westphal et al at the angle of the joint reaction force during heel strike for a total of 50 000 cycles. 3D assessment of any micro motion post mechanical testing and degree of graft compaction was done with high resolution micro CT.

Results: Vibration impaction lead to a significant reduction in the peak stresses during the impaction process throughout the 6 steps (e.g. Step 1: 34.6 vs 110.8 MPa p=0.03). There was also far less variability in the peak stresses in the vibration group compared to standard impaction both in sequential impactions by the same surgeon and between different surgeons. One medial wall fracture occurred in the control group only. There was no difference in the degree of graft compaction or in the subsidence of the implant post cyclical loading.

Conclusion: Impaction bone grafting can be a difficult surgical skill with a significant learning curve. We believe that this new technique of applying vibration coupled with drainage to the IBG process in the acetabulum can reduce the risk of intraoperative fracture whilst achieving good graft compaction and implant stability. This technique therefore has the potential to widen the ‘safety margins’ of IBG and reduce the learning curve allowing more widespread adoption of the technique for replacing lost bone stock.