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.

Inaccurate component placement during total hip arthroplasty (THA) can have significant and costly consequences. Malpositioning of the acetabular cup components can lead to dislocation and revision surgery, while postoperative discrepancies in leg length can lead to biomechanical imbalances, causing chronic low back pain. Current methods for monitoring these parameters intraoperatively rely on manual methods such as tissue tensioning or on the surgeon's experience, both of which are subject to inaccuracies. Computer-assisted navigation, while currently used in only a small percentage of THA procedures, is an emerging technology that has the potential to improve the accuracy with which surgeons place components during THA by providing real-time, intraoperative data. One innovative navigation system – Intellijoint HIP^® (Intellijoint Surgical, Waterloo, ON) – has demonstrated its accuracy, time-neutrality, safety and effectiveness in clinical studies and has the potential to improve outcomes and reduce re-admissions and revisions during both primary and revision THA.

The ability to assist with placement of the cup component at a preoperative target is a hallmark of navigation systems. In studies examining the proportion of cups placed within Lewinnek's safe zone, significantly more cups were placed within this zone with the Intellijoint system than when using traditional methods (anteversion: 58% vs. 37%, p=0.005; inclination: 87% vs. 67%, p=0.002). Similarly, surgeons were better able to place the cup at a functional orientation of 40 degrees inclination/20 degrees anteversion, with a significantly higher proportion of cups placed within 10 degrees of this target while using the Intellijoint system (70%) than during conventional THA (53%, p=0.02).

In comparisons with postoperative imaging, the Intellijoint system has demonstrated excellent accuracy. In a recent study, intraoperative measurements of anteversion and inclination were within 3.3 ± 3.1 degrees and 1.1 ± 0.9 degrees, respectively, of postoperative 3D EOS imaging. Results for leg length discrepancy are similarly accurate: across several studies, the mean difference between navigation and radiographic measurements ranged from 0.3 to 4.3mm. Evidence indicates that the 90-day rates of dislocation and revision surgery following primary THA with the Intellijoint system were substantially lower than rates associated with traditional methods. These results hold true following navigation-assisted revision surgery as well. At 90 days, 1 year and 2 years post-procedure, no dislocations were reported.

Beyond dislocation, the overall rate of adverse events in cases using Intellijoint has been reported as remarkably low. No device-related fractures have been reported, nor have any instances of postoperative pain at the sites of the surgical pins supporting the camera and/or tracker components. Finally, there is no significant increase in surgical time associated with the use of this device, with a large study comparing navigated THA with traditional THA showing a 2.9-minute increase in procedural time (p=0.60), 1.0 minute of which occurs prior to primary incision (unpublished data).

Computer-assisted navigation – and the Intellijoint HIP system specifically – has demonstrated the ability to improve the accuracy with which surgeons implant components during THA without adversely affecting operating room efficiency or patient safety. This technology has the potential to dramatically improve patient-related outcomes in both the short- and long-term and represents the benefits associated with advanced technologies in the operating room.

Important issues related to total hip replacement for dysplasia are: placement of the cup and bone stock, the role of femoral osteotomy, and the choice of acetabular and femoral components.

The cup can be placed at the correct or near correct anatomical level with or without a bone graft, in a high position (high hip center) or at the right level in a protruded position. All three techniques can provide adequate coverage of the cup. In the high hip position bone graft is not usually necessary to obtain cup coverage. There is, however, a higher rate of component loosening, a higher dislocation rate, and lengthening is limited to the femoral side. Placing the cup in a protruded position to obtain coverage does not restore bone stock for future surgery, but it does place the hip at the correct level. Placing the cup in the correct anatomical position (i.e. at the right level and not protruded) may require a structural autograft which adds to the complexity of the case. However, bone stock is restored for future surgery. Revision of acetabular components that have had a shelf graft have a survivorship of 96.5% at 10 years and only 5 of 34 required structural support (2 augments, 3 structural allografts).

Femoral osteotomy may be used as part of the exposure for diaphyseal shortening or for derotation of excessive anteversion. The osteotomy is carried out in the sub-trochanteric region and may be oblique, step-cut or transverse. Fixation of the osteotomy is achieved via the stem, a plate, or a cortical strut.

Cementless components are usually used because of the relatively young age of this patient population. Small components may be necessary. On the femoral side, the stem should be straight or modular so excessive anteversion can be neutralised.

An expert panel of orthopaedic surgeons is going to be evaluating primary and revision total hip and total knee replacements submitted by the audience. Participants will present the x-rays and clinical findings of difficult cases for which they are seeking an expert opinion from the panel. The panel will probably have conflicting opinions which will lead to an entertaining and educational session. The moderator will also provide some extremely challenging cases once again, to stimulate more controversy. This session has been very popular in the past and is fast moving, humorous and educational.

An osteochondral defect greater than 3cm in diameter and 1cm in depth is best managed by an osteochondral allograft.

If there is an associated knee deformity, then an osteotomy is performed. In our series of osteochondral allografts for large post-traumatic knee defects realignment osteotomy is performed about 60% of the time in order to off-load the transplant. To correct varus we realign the proximal tibia with an opening wedge osteotomy. To correct valgus, we realign the distal femur with a closing wedge osteotomy.

Our results with osteochondral allografts for the large osteochondral defects of the knee both femur and tibia, have been excellent in 85% of patients at an average follow-up of 10 years. The Kaplan-Meier survivorship at 15 years is 72%. At an average follow-up of 22 years in 58 patients with distal femoral osteochondral allograft, 13 have been revised (22%). The 15-year survivorship was 84%.

Retrieval studies of 24 fresh osteochondral grafts obtained at graft revision or conversion total knee replacement at an average of 12 years (5 – 25) revealed the following. In the areas where the graft was still intact, the cartilage was of normal thickness and architecture. Matrix staining was normal except in the superficial and upper mid zones. Chondrocytes were mostly viable but there was chondrocyte clusters and loss of chondrocyte polarity. Host bone had extended to the calcified cartilage but variable remnants of dead bone surrounded by live bone persisted. With a stable osseous base the hyaline cartilage portion of the graft can survive for up to 25 years.

An osteochondral defect greater than 3cm in diameter and 1cm in depth is best managed by an osteochondral allograft.

If there is an associated knee deformity, then an osteotomy was performed. In our series of osteochondral allografts for large post-traumatic knee defects, realignment osteotomy is performed about 60% of the time in order to off load the transplant. To correct varus we realign the proximal tibia with an opening wedge osteotomy. To correct valgus, we realign the distal femur with a closing wedge osteotomy.

Our results with osteochondral allografts for the large osteochondral defects of the knee both femur and tibia, have been excellent in 85% of patients at an average follow-up of 10 years. The Kaplan-Meier survivorship at 15 years is 72%. At an average follow-up of 22 years in 58 patients with distal femoral osteochondral allograft, 13 have been revised (22%). The 15-year survivorship was 84%.

Retrieval studies of 24 fresh osteochondral grafts obtained at graft revision or conversion to total knee replacement at an average of 12 years (5 – 25) revealed the following. In the areas where the graft was still intact, the cartilage was of normal thickness and architecture. Matrix staining was normal except in the superficial and upper mid-zones. Chondrocytes were mostly viable but there was chondrocyte clusters and loss of chondrocyte polarity. Host bone had extended to the calcified cartilage but variable remnants of dead bone surrounded by live bone persisted. With a stable osseous base the hyaline cartilage portion of the graft can survive for up to 25 years.

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

Cup Cage Construct – in this construct there must be enough bleeding host bone to stabilise the ultraporous cup which functions like a structural allograft supporting and eventually taking the stress off the cage. This construct is ideal for pelvic discontinuity with the ultraporous cup, i.e., bridging and to some degree distracting the discontinuity. If, however, the ultra-porous cup cannot be stabilised against some bleeding host bone, then a conventional stand-alone cage must be used.

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.

Important issues related to total hip replacement for dysplasia are: placement of the cup and bone stock; the role of femoral osteotomy, and the choice of acetabular and femoral components.

The cup can be placed at the correct or near correct anatomical level with or without a bone graft, in a high position (high hip center) or at the right level in a protruded position. All three techniques can provide adequate coverage of the cup. In the high hip position bone graft is not usually necessary to obtain cup coverage. There is, however, a higher rate of component loosening, a higher dislocation rate, and lengthening is limited to the femoral side. Placing the cup in a protruded position to obtain coverage does not restore bone stock for future surgery, but it does place the hip at the correct level. Placing the cup in the correct anatomical position (i.e., at the right level and not protruded) may require a structural autograft which adds to the complexity of the case. However, bone stock is restored for future surgery.

Femoral osteotomy may be used as part of the exposure for diaphyseal shortening or for derotation of excessive anteversion. The osteotomy is carried out in the sub-trochanteric region and may be oblique, step-cut or transverse. Fixation of the osteotomy is achieved via the stem, a plate, or a cortical strut.

Cementless components are usually used because of the relatively young age of this patient population. Small components may be necessary. On the femoral side, the stem should be straight or modular so excessive anteversion can be neutralised.

An expert panel of orthopaedic surgeons is going to be evaluating primary and revision total hip and total knee replacements submitted by the audience. Participants will present the x-rays and clinical findings of difficult cases for which they are seeking an expert opinion from the panel. The panel will probably have conflicting opinions which will lead to an entertaining and educational session. The moderator will also provide some extremely challenging cases to stimulate more controversy. This session has been very popular in the past and is fast moving, humorous and educational.

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.

An expert panel of orthopaedic surgeons is going to be evaluating primary and revision total hip and total knee replacements submitted by the audience. Participants will present the x-rays and clinical findings of difficult cases for which they are seeking an expert opinion from the panel. The panel will probably have conflicting opinions which will lead to an entertaining and educational session. The moderator will also provide some extremely challenging cases once again, to stimulate more controversy. This session has been very popular in the past and is fast moving, humorous and educational.

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.

An expert panel of orthopaedic surgeons is going to be evaluating primary and revision total hip and total knee replacements submitted by the audience. Participants will present the x-rays and clinical findings of difficult cases for which they are seeking an expert opinion from the panel. The panel will probably have conflicting opinions which will lead to an entertaining and educational session. The moderator will also provide some extremely challenging cases once again, to stimulate more controversy. This session has been very popular in the past and is fast moving, humorous and educational.

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.

The parameters to be considered in the selection of a cartilage repair strategy are: the diameter of the chondral defect; the depth of the bone defect; the location of the defect (weight bearing); alignment.

A chondral defect less than 3 cm in diameter can be managed by surface treatment such as microfracture, autologous chondrocyte transplantation, mosaicplasty, or periosteal grafting.

An osteochondral defect less than 3 cm in diameter and less than 1 cm in depth can be managed by autologous chondrocyte transplantation, mosaicplasty or periosteal grafting.

An osteochondral defect greater than 3 cm in diameter and 1 cm in depth is best managed by an osteochondral allograft.

If there is an associated knee deformity, then an osteotomy should also be performed with all of the aforementioned procedures. In our series of osteochondral allografts for large post-traumatic knee defects realignment osteotomy is performed about 60% of the time in order to off load the transplant. To correct varus we realign the proximal tibia with an opening wedge osteotomy. To correct valgus, we realign the distal femur with a closing wedge osteotomy.

Our results with osteochondral allografts for the large osteochondral defects of the knee have been excellent in 85% of patients at an average follow-up of 10 years. The Kaplan-Meier survivorship at 15 years is 72%. At an average follow-up of 22 years in 58 patients with distal femoral osteochondral allograft, 13 have been revised (22%). The 15-year survivorship was 84%.

The results for the hip are early. To date we have performed this procedure on 16 patients. Surgical dislocation of the hip is carried out via a trochanteric osteotomy and the defect defined and trephined out. A press-fit fresh osteochondral allograft is inserted using the trephine technique. We have published our early results on a series of 8 patients with 5 good to excellent results, 1 fair result and 2 failures.

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) represents one of the most safe and effective medical procedures. However, with an unchanged rate of 3% in primary and 10% in revision THAs, despite alleged surgical technique and implant design improvements, dislocation continues to be a matter of concerns with important functional and financial consequences. A number of parameters influence the risk for dislocation including patient specific factors, surgeon experience, femoral head size, implant orientation, and surgical approach. The latter has been less investigated during the past 15 years, as it was supposed that large femoral heads or specifically designed implants such as dual mobility sockets would notably decrease the risk for dislocation. Also, minimally invasive approach including the anterior approach, and rapid recovery have been aggressively marketed, making the transtrochanteric approach rarely if ever used by most surgeons. Also, this surgical technique is demanding and time consuming, not exactly what is expected in the 21st century. However, there are some clear advantages to the transtrochanteric approach both in primary and revision THAs: it gives a large view on the acetabulum allowing for anatomic reconstruction of the artificial joint and correct implants orientation; it allows for preservation of the entire periarticular muscles and tendons including the external rotators (external obturator+++); and it permits to balance the abductors tension by lowering and/or translating the greater trochanter. These advantages can notably reduce the rate of dislocation in both primary and revision THAs. Data from our institution including senior and junior surgeons have showed rates of dislocation ranging from 0.1 to 1.7% in primary THAs and from 1.5 to 2.3% in revision THAs. Our rate of nonunion is less than 2% even in revision using a specifically designed trochanteric claw plate almost systematically used in revision THAs to allow for a more rigid fixation. Finally, the transtrochanteric approach can be extended to the femur to cope with specific situations. The surgical tips and tricks of this approach will be discussed in the presentation.

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.

(B) Conventional cage in combination with a porous augment where contact with bleeding host bone can be with the ilium and then by the use of cement that construct can be unified. The augment provides contact with bleeding host bone and if and when ingrowth occurs, the stress is taken off the cage.

(C) Cup Cage Construct – in this construct there must be enough bleeding host bone to stabilise the ultra-porous cup which functions like a structural allograft supporting and eventually taking the stress off the cage. This construct is ideal for pelvic discontinuity with the ultra-porous cup, i.e., bridging and to some degree distracting the discontinuity. If, however, the ultra-porous cup cannot be stabilised against some bleeding host bone, then a conventional stand-alone cage must be used.

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.

Patients with longstanding hip fusion are predisposed to symptomatic degenerative changes of the lumbar spine, ipsilateral knee and contralateral hip. In such patients, conversion of hip arthrodesis to hip replacement can provide relief of such symptoms. However, this is a technically demanding procedure associated with higher complication and failure rates than routine total hip replacement.

The aim of this study was to determine the early functional results and complications in patients undergoing hip fusion conversion to total hip replacement, performed or supervised by a single surgeon, using a standardised approach and uncemented implants. We hypothesised that a satisfactory functional improvement can be achieved in following conversion of hip fusion to hip replacement.

Eighteen hip fusions were converted to total hip replacements. A constrained acetabular liner was used in 3 hips. Mean follow up was 5 years (2 to 15 years). Two (11%) hips failed, requiring revision surgery and two patients (11%) had injury to the peroneal nerve. Heterotopic ossification developed in 7 (39%) hips, in one case resulting in joint ankylosis. No hips dislocated.

Conversion of hip fusion to hip replacement carries an increased risk of heterotopic ossification and neurological injury. We advise prophylaxis against heterotopic ossification. When there is concern about hip stability we suggest that the use of a constrained acetabular liner is considered. Despite the potential for complications, this procedure had a high success rate and was effective in restoring hip function.

Impaction grafting is an excellent option for acetabular revision. It is technique specific and very popular in England and the Netherlands and to some degree in other European centers. The long term published results are excellent. It is, however, technique dependent and the best results are for contained cavitary defects. If the defect is segmental and can be contained by a single mesh and impaction grafting, the results are still quite good. If, however, there is a larger segmental defect of greater than 50% of the acetabulum or a pelvic discontinuity, other options should be considered.

Segmental defects of 25–50% can be managed by minor column (shelf) or figure of 7 structural allografts with good long term results. Porous metal augments are now a good option with promising early to mid-term results. Segmental defects of greater than 50% require a structural graft or porous augment usually protected by a cage. If there is an associated pelvic discontinuity then a cup cage is a better solution.

An important question is does impaction grafting facilitate rerevision surgery? There is no evidence to support this but some histological studies of impacted allograft would suggest that it may. On the other hand there are papers that show that structural allografts do restore bone stock for further revision surgery. Also the results of impaction grafting are best in the hands of surgeons comfortable with using cement on the acetabular side, and one of the reasons why this technique is not as popular in North America.