Pelvic discontinuity is a separation through the acetabulum with the ilium displacing superiorly and the ischium/pubis displacing inferiorly. This is a biomechanically challenging environment with a high rate of failure for standard acetabular components. The cup-cage reconstruction involves the use of a highly porous metal cup to achieve biological bone ingrowth on both sides of the pelvic discontinuity and an ilioischial cage to provide secure fixation across the discontinuity and bring the articulating hip center to the correct level. The purpose of this study was to report long term follow up of the use of the cup-cage to treat pelvic discontinuity. All hip revision procedures between January 2003 and January 2022 where a cup-cage was used for a hip with a pelvic discontinuity were included in this retrospective review. All patients received a Trabecular Metal Revision Shell with either a ZCA cage or TMARS cage (Zimmer-Biomet Inc.). Pelvic discontinuity was diagnosed on pre-operative radiographs and/or intraoperatively. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed with failure defined as revision of the cup-cage reconstruction. Fifty-seven cup-cages in 56 patients were included with an average follow-up of 6.25 years (0.10 to 19.98 years). The average age of patients was 72.09 years (43 to 92 years) and 70.2% of patients were female. The five year Kaplan-Meier survival was 92.0% (95% CI 84.55 to 99.45) and the ten year survival was 80.5% (95% CI 58.35 to 102.65). There were 5 major complications that required revision of the cup-cage reconstruction (3 infections and 2 mechanical failures). There were 9 complications that required re-operation without revision of the cup-cage reconstruction (5 dislocations, 3 washouts for infection and one femoral revision for aseptic loosening). In our hands the cup-cage reconstruction has provided a reliable tool to address pelvic discontinuity with an acceptable complication rate.
Background. Uncemented dual-tapered stems are a popular choice for primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). The purpose of this study was to examine long-term outcomes after primary THA utilizing a single dual-tapered stem. Patients and Methods. Utilizing our total joint registry, we retrospectively identified 1215 THAs (1055 patients) performed with an uncemented dual-tapered stem from 1998 to 2009. Mean age was 55 years, 70% were male, and mean BMI was 30 kg/m. 2. Mean follow-up was 10 years. Analysis included implant survivorship, clinical outcomes, and radiographic results. Results. Survivorship from stem revision for any reason was 99.0% at 5 years postoperatively and 98.4% at both 10 and 15 years. Survivorship from stem revision for aseptic loosening was 99.9% at 5-, 10-, and 15-years postoperatively. Survivorship from stem revision for periprosthetic fracture was 99.7%, 99.1%, and 98.9% at 5, 10, and 15 years postoperatively, respectively. In total, 18 (1.5%) stems underwent revision. Revisions were performed for periprosthetic fracture (10, 0.82%), infection (7, 0.58%), and aseptic loosening (1, 0.08%). Intraoperative fracture occurred in 58 (4.77%) THAs treated with cerclage wiring (52, 89.66%) or no treatment (6, 10.34%) and insertion of a standard prosthesis. At mean radiographic follow-up of 10 years, only 4 of 1084 (0.37%) stems with 1-year radiographic follow-up had any radiolucency around the proximal ongrowth coating, and only 1 (0.10%) of these had a circumferential radiolucent line (Gruen zones 1–14). Conclusions. This uncemented dual-tapered femoral stem is associated with excellent survivorship, reasonably low intraoperative fracture rate, and extremely low rates of revision for aseptic loosening, periprosthetic fracture, and infection when used for primary THA at
Aims. Surface replacement arthroplasty (SRA), compared with traditional total hip arthroplasty (THA), is more expensive and carries unique concern related to metal ions production and hypersensitivity. Additionally, SRA is a more demanding procedure with a decreased margin for error compared with THA. To justify its use, SRA must demonstrate comparable component survival and some clinical advantages. We therefore performed a systematic literature review to investigate the differences in complication rates, patient-reported outcomes, stress shielding, and hip biomechanics between SRA and THA. Materials and Methods. A systematic review of the literature was completed using MEDLINE and EMBASE search engines. Inclusion criteria were level I to level III articles that reported clinical outcomes following primary SRA compared with THA. An initial search yielded 2503 potential articles for inclusion. Exclusion criteria included review articles, level IV or level V evidence, less than one year’s follow-up, and previously reported data. In total, 27 articles with 4182 patients were available to analyze. Results. Fracture and infection rates were similar between SRA and THA, while dislocation rates were lower in SRA compared with THA. SRA demonstrated equivalent patient-reported outcome scores with greater activity scores and a return to high-level activities compared with THA. SRA more reliably restored native hip joint biomechanics and decreased stress shielding of the proximal femur compared with THA. Conclusion. In young active men with osteoarthritis, there is evidence that SRA offers some potential advantages over THA, including: improved return to high level activities and sport, restoration of native hip biomechanics, and decreased proximal femoral stress shielding. Continued
