Please check your email for the verification action. You may continue to use the site and you are now logged in, but you will not be able to return to the site in future until you confirm your email address.
Purpose: Massive cavitary and segmental bone defects of the medial wall in revision arthroplasty are usually managed with large auto and/or allograft in association with a cemented or a cementless cup. To obtain a satisfactory hip center reconstruction with such a procedure can be sometimes challenging and the complications rate can be high. One other option is the use of a cup with a medial expansion (“protrusio cup”) to treat the medial bone defect.
Method: We carried out a retrospective study including 21 consecutive acetabular revisions arthroplasties using a cementless Converge Protrusio™ cup (Zimmer, Warsaw, IN, USA). Clinical outcomes were assessed by Harris Hip Score (HHS), WOMAC index and SF-12. Hip centre was assessed on anteroposterior (AP) view and the reconstruction was considered as satisfying when its location was located from − 10 to + 10 mm proximally (y axis) and/or medially (x axis) in comparison with ideal theoretical hip center location. Cup migration and modification of abduction angle were considered as significant when there were respectively >
4mm and to >
4° in comparison with the immediate postoperative AP view.
Results: At the last follow up [radiological data: 71.6 months (24–128.3) and clinical data: 72.1 months (24–129.5)], two patients were died and there were no lost of follow up. The mean HHS was 79.4% (52–100), WOMAC 82% (46–100), SF-12 52 (23–71) and 44 (18–65). Bone defect were filled with cancellous bone chips allograft in 16 cases and bulk bone allograft was used in only two cases to manage a large segmental defect of the roof. Bone graft integration was completed in all cases. The mean abduction cup angle was 43.6° (32–60). A satisfying hip centre positioning was obtained in 19 cases on x axis and in 10 cases on y axis, in all the remaining cases, we noted an improved implant positioning. The complications were: recurrent dislocation in one case (successfully revised with a constrained liner), infection in two cases (1 treated conservatively and the other one revised in two times procedure) and Brooker’s type III and IV ectopic ossifications in three cases. A significant cup migration occurred in only one case at nine years but was not revised because of painless. No case required revision for aseptic loosening.
Conclusion: Protusio cups appear as a reliable procedure to manage bone loss in acetabular revision. The revision procedure is widely simplified by reducing the use of the massive allograft and by promoting a satisfying hip center reconstruction to allow an optimal biomechanical joint functioning. Moreover, the cementless fixation in contact with patient acetabular bone makes more easy bone integration.