We used a biodegradable mesh to convert an
First-time revision acetabular components have a 36% re-revision rate at 10 years in Australia, with subsequent revisions known to have even worse results. Acetabular component migration >1mm at two years following revision THA is a surrogate for long term loosening. This study aimed to measure the migration of porous tantalum components used at revision surgery and investigate the effect of achieving press-fit and/or three-point fixation within acetabular bone. Between May 2011 and March 2018, 55 patients (56 hips; 30 female, 25 male) underwent acetabular revision THR with a porous tantalum component, with a post-operative CT scan to assess implant to host bone contact achieved and Radiostereometric Analysis (RSA) examinations on day 2, 3 months, 1 and 2 years. A porous tantalum component was used because the defects treated (Paprosky IIa:IIb:IIc:IIIa:IIIb; 2:6:8:22:18; 13 with pelvic discontinuity) were either deemed too large or in a position preventing screw fixation of an implant with low coefficient of friction. Press-fit and three-point fixation of the implant was assessed intra-operatively and on postoperative imaging. Three-point acetabular fixation was achieved in 51 hips (92%), 34 (62%) of which were press-fit. The mean implant to host bone contact achieved was 36% (range 9-71%). The majority (52/56, 93%) of components demonstrated acceptable early stability. Four components migrated >1mm proximally at two years (1.1, 3.2, 3.6 and 16.4mm). Three of these were in hips with Paprosky IIIB defects, including 2 with pelvic discontinuity. Neither press-fit nor three-point fixation was achieved for these three components and the cup to host bone contact achieved was low (30, 32 and 59%). The majority of porous tantalum components had acceptable stability at two years following revision surgery despite treating large
Introduction and Objective. The surgical strategy for acetabular component revision is determined by available host bone stock. Acetabular bone deficiencies vary from cavitary or segmental defects to complete discontinuity. For segmental
Reconstruction of severe
Summary. This work proposes a novel, automatic method to obtain an anatomical reconstruction for 3D segmented bones with large
Acetabular retractors have been implicated in damage to the femoral
and obturator nerves during total hip replacement. The aim of this
study was to determine the anatomical relationship between retractor
placement and these nerves. A posterior approach to the hip was carried out in six fresh
cadaveric half pelves. Large Hohmann acetabular retractors were
placed anteriorly, over the acetabular lip, and inferiorly, and
their relationship to the femoral and obturator nerves was examined.Objectives
Methods
Impacted morsellised allografts have been used successfully to address the problem of poor bone stock in revision surgery. However, there are concerns about the transmission of pathogens, the high cost and the shortage of supply of donor bone. Bone-graft extenders, such as tricalcium phosphate (TCP) and hydroxyapatite (HA), have been developed to minimise the use of donor bone. In a human cadaver model we have evaluated the surgical and mechanical feasibility of a TCP/HA bone-graft extender during impaction grafting revision surgery. A TCP/HA allograft mix increased the risk of producing a fissure in the femur during the impaction procedure, but provided a higher initial mechanical stability when compared with bone graft alone. The implications of the use of this type of graft extender in impaction grafting revision surgery are discussed.
Impacted bone allograft is often used in revision joint replacement. Hydroxyapatite granules have been suggested as a substitute or to enhance morcellised bone allograft. We hypothesised that adding osteogenic protein-1 to a composite of bone allograft and non-resorbable hydroxyapatite granules (ProOsteon) would improve the incorporation of bone and implant fixation. We also compared the response to using ProOsteon alone against bone allograft used in isolation. We implanted two non-weight-bearing hydroxyapatite-coated implants into each proximal humerus of six dogs, with each implant surrounded by a concentric 3 mm gap. These gaps were randomly allocated to four different procedures in each dog: 1) bone allograft used on its own; 2) ProOsteon used on its own; 3) allograft and ProOsteon used together; or 4) allograft and ProOsteon with the addition of osteogenic protein-1. After three weeks osteogenic protein-1 increased bone formation and the energy absorption of implants grafted with allograft and ProOsteon. A composite of allograft, ProOsteon and osteogenic protein-1 was comparable, but not superior to, allograft used on its own. ProOsteon alone cannot be recommended as a substitute for allograft around non-cemented implants, but should be used to extend the volume of the graft, preferably with the addition of a growth factor.