Porous-coated acetabular hemispherical components have proven successful in all but the most severe revision acetabular defects. A revision jumbo porous coated component has been defined as cup with minimum diameter of 66 mm in men and 62 mm in women. In published studies this size cup is used in 14–39% of acetabular revisions. The advantages of this technique are ease of use, most deficiencies can be treated without structural graft, host bone contact with the porous surface is maximised, and the hip center is generally normal. Jumbo cups are typically used in Paprosky type 2, 3A, and many 3B defects. Requirements for success include circumferential acetabular exposure, an intact posterior column, and much of the posterior wall. The cup should be stable with a press-fit between the ischium and anterior superior acetabulum with the addition of some superior lateral support. Additional support is provided with multiple dome or rim screws. Survivorship of the metal shell with revision for any reason has been reported to be 80%-96% at time frames from 15–20 years. The most common post-operative complication is dislocation

The indications for cementless acetabular fixation have been broadened because our data supports the use of trabecular metal cups even when there's limited bleeding host bone contact. Trabecular metal augments have allowed us to use cementless cups when there is segmental loss of bone. Surgical Technique: The acetabular bed is prepared. If there is less medial bone stock than 2 mm, then morselised allograft is impacted by reverse reaming. When reaming is complete and less than 50% bleeding host bone is available for cup stabilization, then a trabecular metal cup is indicated. Trabecular augments are used if the trabecular cup trial is not stable, or if it is uncovered by 40% or more. The conventional augments come in different sizes to accommodate the diameter of the cup and the size of the defect. Larger defects are addressed with anterior and posterior column augments, and superior defects with figure of seven augments. Augments are fixed with at least two screws. The interface between the cup and the augments should be stable, but some surgeons place a very thin layer of cement between the augment and cup so micromotion does not occur while ingrowth is occurring. We have used trabecular metal augments in 46 acetabular revisions in conjunction with a trabecular metal cup. Thirty-four cases have at least 2 years follow-up with an average of 64.5 months. There has been 4 cup loosenings with 3 re-revisions

Structural bulk autografts restore the severe bone loss at primary hip arthroplasty in dysplastic hips and have shown to have good long term outcomes. There are only a few reports of revision arthroplasty for these sockets that fail eventually. We report on a series of such primary hips which underwent cemented revision of the socket for aseptic loosening and their outcomes. A retrospective review was performed from our database to identify fifteen acetabular revisions after previous bulk autograft. The mean age at revision was 53.9 years (range 31–72.1). The mean duration between the primary and revision arthroplasty was 12.4 years (range 6.6 – 20.3). All procedures were done using trochanteric osteotomy and three hips also needed the femoral component revision. All fifteen hips needed re-bone grafting at the revision surgery to restore the new socket to the level of the true acetabulum. Of these ten hips had morsellised impaction allograft, and the remaining five also needing a structural bulk allograft. Two sockets underwent re-revision at mean 7.5 years for aseptic loosening. One patient had a dislocation that was reduced closed. At a mean follow up of 5.7 years, one socket showed superior migration, but was stable and did not need further intervention. Two other sockets also showed radiological evidence of loosening, and are being closely monitored. The medium term results of cemented acetabular revision in this younger age group are satisfactory, with repeat bone grafting being required to restore the true acetabular position. Though the primary arthroplasty with bulk bone graft recreates the acetabular bone stock, significant bone loss due to the mechanical loosening of the socket needs to be anticipated in revision surgery

Introduction. Reinforcement ring with allograft bone is commonly used for acetabular reconstruction of bone defects because it can achieve stable initial fixation of the prosthesis. It is not clear whether the allograft bone can function as a viable host bone and provide long-standing structural support. The purpose of this study was to assess to long-term survival of the reinforcement rings and allograft bone incorporation after acetabular revisions. Methods. We retrospectively reviewed 39 hips (37 patients) who underwent reconstruction of the acetabulum with a Ganz reinforcement ring and allograft bone in revision total hip arthroplasty. There were 18 females and 19 males with a mean age of 55.9 years (35–74 years). The minimum postoperative follow-up period was 10 years (10∼17 years). We assessed the acetabular bone defect using the Paprosky's classification. We determined the rates of loosening of the acetabular reconstructions, time to aseptic loosening, integration of the allograft bone, resorption of the allograft bone, and survival rate. Aseptic loosening of the acetabular component was defined as a change in the cup migration of more than 5 mm or a change in the inclination angle of more than 5° or breakage of the acetabular component at the time of the follow-up. Graft integration was defined as trabecular remodelling crossing the graft-host interface. Resorption of the allograft bone was classified as minor (<1/3), moderate (1/3–1/2) or severe (>1/2). Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis was performed for aseptic loosening of the acetabular component. The results. The acetabular bone defects were classified as follows: 8 type II hips (4 type IIB, 4 type IIC), and 31 type III hips (17 type IIIA, 14 type IIIB). Fourteen (35.9%) of 39 hips was defined as aseptic loosening of an acetabular component. Loosening was more frequent in type IIIB (57.1%) than in type IIIA hips (29.4%). Mean time to aseptic loosening of the acetabular reconstructions was 6.3 years in type IIIA and from 5 years in type IIIB defects, respectively. Allograft bone incorporation was satisfactory in 66.7% of hips. There was minor bone resorption in 14.3% and moderate bone resorption in 10.2%. In 9 hips (23.1%), severe resorption of the allograft bone was observed and early component loosening was observed in these cases. The survival rate of acetabular component at 10 years of follow-up was 63.6% (95% confidence interval, 49–77%) with aseptic loosening as endpoints. Conclusions. The long-term survival rate of acetabular revision using the reinforcement ring and allograft bone in the reconstruction of severe acetabular bone defects was unsatisfactorily low due to loosening of acetabular components. Because of unfavorable graft incorporation into a host bone, an alternative component and structural support may be employed in the reconstruction of severe acetabular bone defects

The indications for cementless acetabular fixation have been broadened because our data supports the use of trabecular metal cups even when there's limited bleeding host bone contact. Trabecular metal augments have allowed us to use cementless cups when there is segmental loss of bone. Surgical Technique: The acetabular bed is prepared. If there is less medial bone stock than 2mm, then morselised allograft is impacted by reverse reaming. When reaming is complete and less than 50% bleeding host bone is available for cup stabilisation, then a trabecular metal cup is indicated. Trabecular augments are used if the trabecular cup trial is not stable, or if it is uncovered by 40% or more. The conventional augments come in different sizes to accommodate the diameter of the cup and the size of the defect. Larger defects are addressed with anterior and posterior column augments, and superior defects with figure of seven augments. Augments are fixed with at least two screws. The interface between the cup and the augments should be stable, but some surgeons place a very thin layer of cement between the augment and cup so micromotion does not occur while ingrowth is occurring. We have used trabecular metal augments in 46 acetabular revisions in conjunction with a trabecular metal cup. Thirty-four cases have at least 2 years follow-up with an average of 64.5 months. There have been 4 cup loosenings with 3 re-revisions

The indications for cementless acetabular fixation have been broadened because our data supports the use of trabecular metal cups even when there's limited bleeding host bone contact. Trabecular metal augments have allowed us to use cementless cups when there is segmental loss of bone. Surgical Technique:. The acetabular bed is prepared. If there is less medial bone stock than 2mm, then morselised allograft is impacted by reverse reaming. When reaming is complete and less than 50% bleeding host bone is available for cup stabilization, then a trabecular metal cup is indicated. Trabecular augments are used if the trabecular cup trial is not stable, or if it is uncovered by 40% or more. The conventional augments come in different sizes to accommodate the diameter of the cup and the size of the defect. Larger defects are addressed with anterior and posterior column augments, and superior defects with figure of seven augments. Augments are fixed with at least two screws. The interface between the cup and the augments should be stable, but some surgeons place a very thin layer of cement between the augment and cup so micromotion does not occur while ingrowth is occurring. We have used trabecular metal augments in 46 acetabular revisions in conjunction with a TM cup. Thirty-four cases have at least 2 years follow-up with an average of 64.5 months. There has been 4 cup loosenings with 3 re-revisions

The indications for cementless acetabular fixation have been broadened because our data supports the use of trabecular metal cups even when there's limited bleeding host bone contact. Trabecular metal augments have allowed us to use cementless cups when there is segmental loss of bone. Surgical Technique: The acetabular bed is prepared. If there is less medial bone stock than 2 mm, then morselised allograft is impacted by reverse reaming. When reaming is complete and less than 50% bleeding host bone is available for cup stabilization, then a trabecular metal cup is indicated. Trabecular augments are used if the trabecular cup trial is not stable, or if it is uncovered by 40% or more. The conventional augments come in different sizes to accommodate the diameter of the cup and the size of the defect. Larger defects are addressed with anterior and posterior column augments, and superior defects with figure of seven augments. Augments are fixed with at least two screws. The interface between the cup and the augments should be stable, but some surgeons place a very thin layer of cement between the augment and cup so micromotion does not occur while ingrowth is occurring. We have used trabecular metal augments in 46 acetabular revisions in conjunction with a trabecular metal cup. Thirty-four cases have at least 2 years follow-up with an average of 64.5 months. There has been 4 cup loosenings with 3 re-revisions. Our most up to date data is 101 cases with an average follow-up of 3 years. There has been one infection that underwent a two stage revision. There are 4 loose cups – 3 revised

Introduction. In the case of bipolar hemiarthroplasty, surgeons are often faced with only migration of outer head and severe osteolysis in acetabulum without loosening of femoral component. There has been much debate regarding the merits of removing or retaining stable femoral components in such cases. The purpose of this study was to determine whether revision of an isolated acetabular component without the removal of a well-fixed femoral component [Fig. 1] could be successfully performed. Materials and methods. Thirty-four hips of 33 patients who were followed up for a minimum of 1 year were examined. There were 29 women and 4 men. The average time from primary operation to revision surgery was 12.5 years (range, 0.0 to 17.9 years), and the average follow-up time after revision was 5 years (range, 1.1 to 15.2 years). The average age of the patients at the time of the index revision was sixty-four years (range, thirty-two to seventy-eight years). The reason for acetabular revision was migration of outer head in twenty-eight hips, disassembly of bipolar cup in four hips and recurrent dislocation in two hips. Of the thirty-four femoral components, twenty-seven were cementless and seven were cemented. In nine hips, we performed bone grafting to osteolysis of the proximal femur around the stem. Acetabular components were revised to an acetabular reinforcement ring with a cemented cup in 26 hips, to cementless acetabular components in 8 hips, and to cemented cup in 1 hip. Results. The average Japan Orthopaedic Association hip score improved from 50.7 to 86.1 points after revision surgery. One femoral component (3%) was revised because of periprosthetic fracture, three years after the index acetabular revision and eighteen years after the initial bipolar hemiarthroplasty. Radiographic evaluation of the thirty-three femoral components that were not revised demonstrated no evidence of loosening or subsidence. There were no dislocation or deep infection. Thirty-three (97%) of the acetabular components were judged to be stable at the final follow-up. A nonprogressive radiolucent line of less than 2 mm was observed in one case. Conclusion. We recommend that isolated acetabular revision be considered in cases of failed bipolar hemiarthroplasty with a well-fixed femoral component

Acetabular cages are necessary when an uncemented or cemented cup cannot be stabilised at the correct anatomic level. Impaction grafting with mesh for containment of bone graft is an alternative for some cases in centers that specialise in this technique.

At our center we use three types of cage constructs –

(A)

Conventional cage ± structural or morselised bone grafting. This construct is used where there is no significant bleeding host bone. This construct is susceptible to cage fatigue and fracture, This reconstruction is used in young patients where restoration of bone stock is important.

In our center the cup-cage reconstruction is our most common technique where a cage is used, especially if there is a pelvic discontinuity.

Acetabular bone loss and presence of pelvic discontinuity were assessed according to the Gross classification. Sixty-seven cup-cage procedures with an average follow-up of 74 months (range, 24–135 months; SD, 34.3) months were identified; 26 of 67 (39%) were Gross Type IV and 41 of 67 (61%) were Gross Type V (pelvic discontinuity). Failure was defined as revision surgery for any cause, including infection.

The 5-year Kaplan-Meier survival rate with revision for any cause representing failure was 93% (95% confidence interval, 83.1–97.4), and the 10-year survival rate was 85% (95% CI, 67.2–93.8). The Merle d'Aubigné-Postel score improved significantly from a mean of 6 pre-operatively to 13 post-operatively (p < 0.001). Four cup-cage constructs had non-progressive radiological migration of the ischial flange and they remain stable.

Acetabular cages are necessary when an uncemented or cemented cup cannot be stabilised at the correct anatomic level. Impaction grafting with mesh for containment of bone graft is an alternative for some cases in centers that specialise in this technique.

At our center we use three types of cage constructs:

(A)

Conventional cage ± structural or morselised bone grafting. This construct is used where there is no significant bleeding host bone. This construct is susceptible to cage fatigue and fracture. This reconstruction is used in young patients where restoration of bone stock is important.

In our center the cup cage reconstruction is our most common technique where a cage is used, especially if there is a pelvic discontinuity.

Acetabular cages are necessary when an uncemented or cemented cup cannot be stabilised at the correct anatomic level. Impaction grafting with mesh for containment of bone graft is an alternative for some cases in centers that specialise in this technique.

At our center we use three types of cage constructs –

Conventional cage ± structural or morselised bone grafting. This construct is used where there is no significant bleeding host bone. This construct is susceptible to cage fatigue and fracture. This reconstruction is used in young patients where restoration of bone stock is important.

In our center the cup cage reconstruction is our most common technique where a cage is used, especially if there is a pelvic discontinuity.

BACKGROUND

Total hip revision surgery in cases with previous multiple reconstructive procedures is a challenging treatment due to difficulties in treatment huge bone defects with standard revision prosthetic combinations. A new specially made production system in Electron-Beam Melting (EBM) technology based on a precise analysis of patients' preoperative CT scans has been developed.

Hemispheric, porous-ingrowth revision acetabular components (generally with multiple screw fixation) have demonstrated versatility and durability over 25 years. Jumbo cups (minimum diameter of 62mm in women, 66mm in men, or 10mm larger than the normal contra-lateral acetabulum) are utilised in the majority of revisions with acetabular bone loss, with or without bone grafting, or other augmentation. The popularity of jumbo cups is due to their relative ease of use and the reliability of the result. With up to 20 year follow-up, and failure defined as cup revision for aseptic loosening or radiographic evidence of loosening, implant survival was 97.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 89.6% to 99.3%) at ten years and 82.8% (95% CI, 59% to 97.6%) at fifteen years. Instability is decreased in association with larger diameter bearings. Revisions associated with wear of non-crosslinked polyethylene increased in the second decade. Cross-linked polyethylene and ultra-porous materials will likely increase both the durability and the utility of jumbo cups

The number of joint revision surgeries is rising, and the complexity of the cases is increasing. In 58% of the revision cases, the acetabular component has to be revised. For these indications, literature decision schemes [Paprosky 2005] point at custom pre-shaped implants. Any standard device would prove either unfeasible during surgery or inadequate in the short term. Studies show that custom-made triflanged implants can be a durable solution with good clinical results. However, the number of cases reported is few confirming that the device is not in widespread use.

Introduction

Revision Total Hip Arthroplasties (THA) have a significantly higher failure rate than primary THA's and the most common cause is aseptic loosening of the cup. To reduce this incidence of loosening various porous metal implants with a rough surface and a porous architecture have been developed which are said to increase early osteointegration. However, for successful osteointegration a minimal micromotion between the implant and the host bone (primary stability) is beneficial. It has not been previously determined if the primary stability for the new Gription® titanium cup differs from that of the old Porocoat® titanium cup.

Purpose. Cementless cup with structural allograft is one of option for acetabular revision in the cases which has severe bone loss. This study was performed to verify that the structural allograft with cementless cup could be one of good options for revision of acetabular cup with severe bone defect and to verify that the allograft resorption affect the stability of cementless acetabular cup. Materials and Methods. We reviewed 25 cases of 25 patients who underwent acetabular cup rvision using cementless porous coated hemispherical cup with structural allograft from May 1992 to July 2011 July 2011. There were nine males and sixteen females with an average age of 50.0 years. The average follow-up period was 76.7(28∼212) months. The clinical evaluation was performed using Harris Hip Score(HHS) and UCLA activity score. Radiologically, the degree of resorption of grafted bone, incorporation of allograft bone with normal bone, osteolysis and cup loosening were evaluated. Results. Clinically, the average Harris hip score was improved from 54 preoperatively to 93.4 at the last follow-up. The average UCLA activity score was also improved from 4.3 preoperatively to 6.4 at the last follow-up. Radiologically, the incorporation of allograft was accomplished in 11.4 months and the resorption of grafted bone was noted in 3 cases(12%), but the allograft resorption had not progressed to moderate degree even in long term follow-up. There was no cup loosening and average survivor rate was 100% in 6 years. There was no infection, allograft nonunion, osteolysis. Conclusion. Cementless cup with structural allograft in acetabular cup reconstruction can provide excellent mi-term results in both clinical and radiological aspects. Structural allograft can provide strong mechanical support for the bone ingrowth of cementless cup. The clinical result of this study auggest that cementless cup with structural allograft can be a good option for acetabular cup revision with severe bone defect. Resorption of structural allograft rarely occurred, and the resorption of structural allograft does not affect stablility of cup even in long term follow-up

Introduction. In most cases of revision acetabular total hip arthoplasty (THA), some degree of bone loss will be accompanied. If the bone loss is massive, the management of bone defect is more challenging problem. We consider that using cementless accetabular cup for revision acetabular reconstruction is good indication when stable interface fit between the acetabular cup and bone is achieved. The purpose of this study is to review the result of revision hip arthroplasty using cementless acetabular cup with and without bone graft. Materials and methods. Between 1998 and 2012, 65 revisions using cementless acetabular cup (Mallory-Head 4 Finned component) were performed in 64 patients, whose mean age was 64.9 years. The cases of revision are aseptic loosening (53 joints), and infection (12 joints). All patients were followed up for a minimum period of 24.0 months (mean, 84 months) and were divided into two groups as follows: in group A, revisions without bone graft (28 joints); in group B, revisions with bone graft (37 joints). We compared clinical and radiographical results of group A with group B. Results. According to Paproski's classification, bone defects in Group A were evaluated as either Type I or Type IIa, and those in Group B were in the range of Type IIb to Type IIIb. Large cementless accetablar compornent with diameters of 58 mm or more were used in 6 joints and 21 cases, respectively. Postoperative radiography showed there were no significant deference of the position of hip center, lateral inclination and anteversion of acetabular cup in each group. The migration of the socket in the superior and medialaxes has not been observed in all cases at the latest follow-up. The mean JOA hip score improved from 63.1 points to 88.3 points and from 53.2 to 86.1, respectively and there were no cases of re-revisions in this series. Conclusions. Depending on the bone defect, large cementless accetablar compornent and bone graft should be considered. We are confident that results of acetabular reconstraction using cementless acetabular cup are satisfactory

Introduction. Acetabular component loosening with associated bone loss is a challenge in revision hip arthroplasty. Trabecular Metal (TM) by Zimmer Biomet has been shown to have greater implant survivorship for all-cause acetabular revision in small cohort retrospective studies. Our study aims to review outcomes of acetabular TM implants locally. Method. This is a retrospective observational study using data from Auckland City and North Shore Hospitals from 1st of January 2010 to 31st of December 2020. Primary outcome is implant survivorship (re-revision acetabular surgery for any cause) demonstrated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Secondary outcome is indication for index revision and re-revision surgery. Multivariate analysis used to identify statistically significant factors for re-revision surgery. Results. 225 cases used acetabular TM implants (shells and/or augments) over 10 years. Indications include aseptic loosening (63%), instability (15%) and infection (13%). Of these, 12% (n=28) had further re-revision for infection (54%) and instability (21%). Median time to re-revision was 156 days (range 11 – 2022). No cases of re-revision were due to failure of bony ingrowth or acetabular component loosening. Ethnicity, smoking status, and age were not risk factors for re-revision procedures. Additionally, previous prosthetic joint infection, ethnicity, sex and age were not significant risk factors for re-revision due to infection. Implant survivorship was 80% at 1 year, 71% at 5 years and 64% at 10 years. Discussion. Main indications for re-revision were infection and instability. Demographic factors and co-morbidities did not correlate with increased re-revision risk. Survivorship is poorer compared to cumulative survivorship reported by the New Zealand Joint Registry (NZJR). Explanations are multifactorial and possibly contributed by underestimation of true revision rates by registry data. Conclusions. We need to identify alternate causes for poorer survivorship and review the role of TM implants in acetabular revision within our specified population

The benefit of using acetabular screws in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) has been questioned in recent years. The disadvantages of using screws include increased operative time, risk of injury to surrounding neurovascular structures and metal ware breakage. Recent large registry studies have reported that screws do not confer a protective effect against acetabular loosening or the presence of osteolysis. Other studies have even described an increased risk of aseptic acetabular loosening with the selective use of screws. We report findings from a multicentre cohort study. This large cohort study compared clinical outcomes between primary acetabular components that were inserted with and without screws. Independent variables included the presence (or absence) of screws, the total number of screws used and the cumulative screw length (CSL). Outcome measures included all-cause revision, acetabular component revision and acetabular component loosening. Statistical software (Stata/IC 13.1 for Mac [64-bit Intel]) was used to conduct all statistical analyses. A p-value < 0 .05 taken to be significant. There were 4,583 THAs performed in total. Screws were used in 15.9% (n=733). At a mean follow-up of 5.2 years, the all-cause revision rate in the screw cohort was 1.5% compared to 0.83% in the no screw cohort (p=0.085). There was no difference in acetabular component revision rates for screws (3/733, 0.41%) versus no screws (12/3,850, 0.31%) (p=0.439). The rate of acetabular loosening noted during the time of revision surgery was significantly higher when screws were used in the index procedure (2/733, 0.2%) compared to the no screw cohort (1/3,850, 0.02%) (p=0.017). There was no difference in outcomes when stratifying by the number of screws used or the cumulative screw length. Primary acetabular components do not require screws for fixation. All cause revision rates and acetabular component revision rates are comparable for the screw and the no screw cohorts. The rate of acetabular component loosening, as observed during revision surgery, is significantly higher when screws are used in the index total hip replacement

We report the outcome of 320 primary Total Hip Arthroplasties (THA) with minimum 10-year follow-up (range 10–17 years, mean 12.6 years), performed by a single surgeon in Tauranga New Zealand, with the Exeter Contemporary Flanged all-polyethylene cup and Exeter femoral stem via a posterior approach. The aim of the study is to compare the results with the published results from the design centre and create a baseline cohort for further outcomes research in this centre. All patients were prospectively followed at 6 weeks, 1 year, 5 years, 10 years, (and 15 years when available). Of 333 cases that matched the inclusion criteria, 13 procedures in 12 patents were excluded because of concomitant bone grafting and/or supplementary cage fixation, leaving 320 primary THA procedures in 280 patients, including 26 bilateral procedures in 13 patients. Mean follow-up of the surviving cases was 12.6 (range 5.0-17.1) years. There were 12 revisions – 2 for fracture, 5 for instability, 1 for impingement pain and 4 for infection. There were no revisions for aseptic cup loosening. Kaplan-Meier survivorship with revision for aseptic loosening as the endpoint was 100% at 15.0 years (with minimum 40 cases remaining at risk). All-cause acetabular revision in 12 cases result in a Kaplan-Meier survival of 95.9% (95% CI: 93.5 to 98.3%). Cemented THA with the Exeter Contemporary Flanged cup and the Exeter stem is a durable combination with results that can be replicated outside of the design centre. The Exeter Contemporary Flanged cup has excellent survivorship at 15 years when used with the Exeter stem. Cemented THA with well-proven components should be considered the benchmark against which newer designs and materials should be compared