Aims

Refobacin Bone Cement R and Palacos R + G bone cement were introduced to replace the original cement Refobacin Palacos R in 2005. Both cements were assumed to behave in a biomechanically similar fashion to the original cement. The primary aim of this study was to compare the migration of a polished triple-tapered femoral stem fixed with either Refobacin Bone Cement R or Palacos R + G bone cement. Repeated radiostereometric analysis was used to measure migration of the femoral head centre. The secondary aims were evaluation of cement mantle, stem positioning, and patient-reported outcome measures.

Aims

Severe acetabular bone loss and pelvic discontinuity (PD) present particular challenges in revision total hip arthroplasty. To deal with such complex situations, cup-cage reconstruction has emerged as an option for treating this situation. We aimed to examine our success in using this technique for these anatomical problems.

An uncemented hemispherical acetabular component is the mainstay of acetabular revision and gives excellent long-term results.

Occasionally, the degree of acetabular bone loss means that a hemispherical component will be unstable when sited in the correct anatomical location or there is minimal bleeding host bone left for biological fixation. On these occasions an alternative method of reconstruction has to be used.

A major column structural allograft has been shown to restore the deficient bone stock to some degree, but it needs to be off-loaded with a reconstruction cage to prevent collapse of the graft. The use of porous metal augments is a promising method of overcoming some of the problems associated with structural allograft. If the defect is large, the augment needs to be protected by a cage to allow ingrowth to occur. Cup-cage reconstruction is an effective method of treating chronic pelvic discontinuity and large contained or uncontained bone defects.

This paper presents the indications, surgical techniques and outcomes of various methods which use acetabular reconstruction cages for revision total hip arthroplasty.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B(1 Suppl A):73–7.

Acetabular bone loss is a challenging problem facing the revision total hip replacement surgeon. Reconstruction of the acetabulum depends on the presence of anterosuperior and posteroinferior pelvic column support for component fixation and stability. The Paprosky classification is most commonly used when determining the location and degree of acetabular bone loss. Augments serve the function of either providing primary construct stability or supplementary fixation.

When a pelvic discontinuity is encountered we advocate the use of an acetabular distraction technique with a jumbo cup and modular porous metal acetabular augments for the treatment of severe acetabular bone loss and associated chronic pelvic discontinuity.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B(11 Suppl A):36–42.

Aims

Few reconstructive techniques are available for patients requiring complex acetabular revisions such as those involving Paprosky type 2C, 3A and 3B deficiencies and pelvic discontinuity. Our aim was to describe the development of the patient specific Triflange acetabular component for use in these patients, the surgical technique and mid-term results. We include a description of the pre-operative CT scanning, the construction of a model, operative planning, and surgical technique. All implants were coated with porous plasma spray and hydroxyapatite if desired.

The removal of all prosthetic material and a two-stage revision procedure is the established standard management of an infected total hip replacement (THR). However, the removal of well-fixed femoral cement is time-consuming and can result in significant loss of bone stock and femoral shaft perforation or fracture. We report our results of two-stage revision THR for treating infection, with retention of the original well-fixed femoral cement mantle in 15 patients, who were treated between 1989 and 2002. Following partial excision arthroplasty, patients received local and systemic antibiotics and underwent reconstruction and re-implantation at a second-stage procedure, when the infection had resolved.

The mean follow-up of these 15 patients was 82 months (60 to 192). Two patients had positive microbiology at the second stage and were treated with six weeks of appropriate antibiotics; one of these developed recurrent infection requiring further revision. Successful eradication of infection was achieved in the remaining 14 patients.

We conclude that when two-stage revision is used for the treatment of peri-prosthetic infection involving a THR, a well-fixed femoral cement mantle can be safely left in situ, without compromising the treatment of infection. Advantages of this technique include a shorter operating time, reduced loss of bone stock and a technically more straightforward second-stage procedure.

We present our experience with a double-mobility acetabular component in 155 consecutive revision total hip replacements in 149 patients undertaken between 2005 and 2009, with particular emphasis on the incidence of further dislocation. The mean age of the patients was 77 years (42 to 89) with 59 males and 90 females. In all, five patients died and seven were lost to follow-up. Indications for revision were aseptic loosening in 113 hips, recurrent instability in 29, peri-prosthetic fracture in 11 and sepsis in two. The mean follow-up was 42 months (18 to 68). Three hips (2%) in three patients dislocated within six weeks of surgery; one of these dislocated again after one year. All three were managed successfully with closed reduction. Two of the three dislocations occurred in patients who had undergone revision for recurrent dislocation. All three were found at revision to have abductor deficiency. There were no dislocations in those revised for either aseptic loosening or sepsis.

These results demonstrate a good mid-term outcome for this component. In the 29 patients revised for instability, only two had a further dislocation, both of which were managed by closed reduction.

Between 1990 and 2000, 123 hips in 110 patients were reconstructed for aseptic loosening using impaction bone grafting with frozen, irradiated, morsellised femoral heads and cemented acetabular components. This series was reported previously at a mean follow-up of five years. We have extended this follow-up and now describe the outcome of 86 hips in 74 patients at a mean of ten years. There have been 19 revisions, comprising nine for infection, seven for aseptic loosening and three for dislocation. In surviving acetabular reconstructions, union of the graft had occurred in 64 of 67 hips (95.5%).

Survival analysis for all indications at ten years was 83.3% (95% confidence interval (CI) 68 to 89) and 71.3% (95% CI 58 to 84) at 15 years.

Acetabular reconstruction using irradiated allograft and a cemented acetabular component is an effective method of reconstruction, providing results in the medium- to long-term comparable with those of reported series where non-irradiated freshly-frozen bone was used.

Revision arthroplasty after infection can often be complicated by both extensive bone loss and a relatively high rate of re-infection. Using allograft to address the bone loss in such patients is controversial because of the perceived risk of bacterial infection from the use of avascular graft material. We describe 12 two-stage revisions for infection in which segmental allografts were loaded with antibiotics using iontophoresis, a technique using an electrical potential to drive ionised antibiotics into cortical bone.

Iontophoresis produced high levels of antibiotic in the allograft, which eluted into the surrounding tissues. We postulate that this offers protection from infection in the high-risk peri-operative period. None of the 12 patients who had two-stage revision with iontophoresed allografts had further infection after a mean period of 47 months (14 to 78).