Aims

The aim of this study was to examine the implant accuracy of custom-made partial pelvis replacements (PPRs) in revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA). Custom-made implants offer an option to achieve a reconstruction in cases with severe acetabular bone loss. By analyzing implant deviation in CT and radiograph imaging and correlating early clinical complications, we aimed to optimize the usage of custom-made implants.

Aims

The aim of this study is to report the long-term outcomes of instrumented femoral revisions with impaction allograft bone grafting (IBG) using the X-change femoral revision system at 30 years after introduction of the technique.

Aims

Bone stock restoration of acetabular bone defects using impaction bone grafting (IBG) in total hip arthroplasty may facilitate future re-revision in the event of failure of the reconstruction. We hypothesized that the acetabular bone defect during re-revision surgery after IBG was smaller than during the previous revision surgery. The clinical and radiological results of re-revisions with repeated use of IBG were also analyzed.

Aims

We previously reported the long-term results of the cementless Duraloc-Profile total hip arthroplasty (THA) system in a 12- to 15-year follow-up study. In this paper, we provide an update on the clinical and radiological results of a previously reported cohort of patients at 23 to 26 years´ follow-up.

Aims. The management of acetabular defects at the time of revision hip arthroplasty surgery is a challenge. This study presents the results of a long-term follow-up study of the use of irradiated allograft bone in acetabular reconstruction. Patients and Methods. Between 1990 and 2000, 123 hips in 110 patients underwent acetabular reconstruction for aseptic loosening, using impaction bone grafting with frozen, irradiated, and morsellized femoral heads and a cemented acetabular component. A total of 55 men and 55 women with a mean age of 64.3 years (26 to 97) at the time of revision surgery are included in this study. Results. At a mean follow-up of 16.9 years, there had been 23 revisions (18.7%), including ten for infection, eight for aseptic loosening, and three for dislocation. Of the 66 surviving hips (58 patients) that could be reassessed, 50 hips (42 patients; 75.6%) were still functioning satisfactorily. Union of the graft had occurred in all hips with a surviving implant. Survival analysis for all indications was 80.6% at 15 years (55 patients at risk, 95% confidence interval (CI) 71.1 to 87.2) and 73.7% at 20 years (eight patients at risk, 95% CI 61.6 to 82.5). Conclusion. Acetabular reconstruction using frozen, irradiated, and morsellized allograft bone and a cemented acetabular component is an effective method of treatment. It gives satisfactory long-term results and is comparable to other types of reconstruction. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:1449–54

Aims

It may not be possible to undertake revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) in the presence of massive loss of acetabular bone stock using standard cementless hemispherical acetabular components and metal augments, as satisfactory stability cannot always be achieved. We aimed to study the outcome using a reconstruction cage and a porous metal augment in these patients.

This review summarises the technique of impaction grafting with mesh augmentation for the treatment of uncontained acetabular defects in revision hip arthroplasty.

The ideal acetabular revision should restore bone stock, use a small socket in the near-anatomic position, and provide durable fixation. Impaction bone grafting, which has been in use for over 40 years, offers the ability to achieve these goals in uncontained defects. The precepts of modern, revision impaction grafting are that the segmental or cavitary defects must be supported with a mesh; the contained cavity is filled with vigorously impacted morselised fresh-frozen allograft; and finally, acrylic cement is used to stabilise the graft and provide rigid, long-lasting fixation of the revised acetabular component.

Favourable results have been published with this technique. While having its limitations, it is a viable option to address large acetabular defects in revision arthroplasty.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B(1 Supple A):25–30.

The ‘jumbo’ acetabular component is now commonly used in acetabular revision surgery where there is extensive bone loss. It offers high surface contact, permits weight bearing over a large area of the pelvis, the need for bone grafting is reduced and it is usually possible to restore centre of rotation of the hip. Disadvantages of its use include a technique in which bone structure may not be restored, a risk of excessive posterior bone loss during reaming, an obligation to employ screw fixation, limited bone ingrowth with late failure and high hip centre, leading to increased risk of dislocation. Contraindications include unaddressed pelvic dissociation, inability to implant the component with a rim fit, and an inability to achieve screw fixation. Use in acetabulae with < 50% bone stock has also been questioned. Published results have been encouraging in the first decade, with late failures predominantly because of polyethylene wear and aseptic loosening. Dislocation is the most common complication of jumbo acetabular revisions, with an incidence of approximately 10%, and often mandates revision. Based on published results, a hemispherical component with an enhanced porous coating, highly cross-linked polyethylene, and a large femoral head appears to represent the optimum tribology for jumbo acetabular revisions.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B(1 Suppl A):64–7.

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.

The custom triflange is a patient-specific implant for the treatment of severe bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). Through a process of three-dimensional modelling and prototyping, a hydroxyapatite-coated component is created for acetabular reconstruction. There are seven level IV studies describing the clinical results of triflange components. The most common complications include dislocation and infection, although the rates of implant removal are low. Clinical results are promising given the challenging problem. We describe the design, manufacture and implantation process and review the clinical results, contrasting them to other methods of acetabular reconstruction in revision THA.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B(1 Suppl A):68–72.

A number of studies have reported satisfactory results from the isolated revision of an acetabular component. However, many of these studies reported only the short- to intermediate-term results of heterogeneous bearing surfaces in a mixed age group.

We present our experience of using a ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) bearing for isolated revision of an uncemented acetabular component in 166 patients (187 hips) who were under the age of 50 years at the time of revision. There were 78 men and 88 women with a mean age of 47.4 years (28 to 49). The most common reason for revision was polyethylene wear and acetabular osteolysis in 123 hips (66%), followed by aseptic loosening in 49 hips (26%).

We report the clinical and radiological outcome, complication rate, and survivorship of this group. The mean duration of follow-up was 15.6 years (11 to 19).

The mean pre-operative Harris hip score was 33 points (1 to 58), and improved to a mean of 88 points (51 to 100) at follow-up. The mean pre-operative total Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index score was 63.2 (43 to 91) and improved to 19.8 points (9 to 61) post-operatively. Overall, 153 of 166 patients (92%) were satisfied with their outcome. Kaplan–Meier survivorship analysis, with revision or radiological evidence of implant failure (13 patients, 8%) as end-points, was 92% at 15 years (95% confidence interval 0.89 to 0.97).

Isolated revision of a cementless acetabular component using a CoC bearing gives good results in patients under 50 years of age.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1197–1203.

We report the clinical and radiographic outcomes of 208 consecutive femoral revision arthroplasties performed in 202 patients (119 women, 83 men) between March 1991 and December 2007 using the X-change Femoral Revision System, fresh-frozen morcellised allograft and a cemented polished Exeter stem. All patients were followed prospectively. The mean age of the patients at revision was 65 years (30 to 86). At final review in December 2013 a total of 130 patients with 135 reconstructions (64.9%) were alive and had a non re-revised femoral component after a mean follow-up of 10.6 years (4.7 to 20.9). One patient was lost to follow-up at six years, and their data were included up to this point. Re-operation for any reason was performed in 33 hips (15.9%), in 13 of which the femoral component was re-revised (6.3%). The mean pre-operative Harris hip score was 52 (19 to 95) (n = 73) and improved to 80 (22 to 100) (n = 161) by the last follow-up. Kaplan–Meier survival with femoral re-revision for any reason as the endpoint was 94.9% (95% confidence intervals (CI) 90.2 to 97.4) at ten years; with femoral re-revision for aseptic loosening as the endpoint it was 99.4% (95% CI 95.7 to 99.9); with femoral re-operation for any reason as the endpoint it was 84.5% (95% CI 78.3 to 89.1); and with subsidence ≥ 5 mm it was 87.3% (95% CI 80.5 to 91.8). Femoral revision with the use of impaction allograft bone grafting and a cemented polished stem results in a satisfying survival rate at a mean of ten years’ follow-up.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B:771–9.

A common situation presenting to the orthopaedic surgeon today is a worn acetabular liner with substantial acetabular and pelvic osteolysis. The surgeon has many options for dealing with osteolytic defects. These include allograft, calcium based substitutes, demineralised bone matrix, or combinations of these options with or without addition of platelet rich plasma. To date there are no clinical studies to determine the efficacy of using bone-stimulating materials in osteolytic defects at the time of revision surgery and there are surprisingly few studies demonstrating the clinical efficacy of these treatment options. Even when radiographs appear to demonstrate incorporation of graft material CT studies have shown that incorporation is incomplete. The surgeon, in choosing a graft material for a surgical procedure must take into account the efficacy, safety, cost and convenience of that material.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B (11 Suppl A):70–2.

To assess the sustainability of our institutional bone bank, we calculated the final product cost of fresh-frozen femoral head allografts and compared these costs with the use of commercial alternatives. Between 2007 and 2010 all quantifiable costs associated with allograft donor screening, harvesting, storage, and administration of femoral head allografts retrieved from patients undergoing elective hip replacement were analysed.

From 290 femoral head allografts harvested and stored as full (complete) head specimens or as two halves, 101 had to be withdrawn. In total, 104 full and 75 half heads were implanted in 152 recipients. The calculated final product costs were €1367 per full head. Compared with the use of commercially available processed allografts, a saving of at least €43 119 was realised over four-years (€10 780 per year) resulting in a cost-effective intervention at our institution. Assuming a price of between €1672 and €2149 per commercially purchased allograft, breakeven analysis revealed that implanting between 34 and 63 allografts per year equated to the total cost of bone banking.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1307–11

We retrospectively reviewed 44 consecutive patients (50 hips) who underwent acetabular re-revision after a failed previous revision that had been performed using structural or morcellised allograft bone, with a cage or ring for uncontained defects. Of the 50 previous revisions, 41 cages and nine rings were used with allografts for 14 minor-column and 36 major-column defects. We routinely assessed the size of the acetabular bone defect at the time of revision and re-revision surgery. This allowed us to assess whether host bone stock was restored. We also assessed the outcome of re-revision surgery in these circumstances by means of radiological characteristics, rates of failure and modes of failure. We subsequently investigated the factors that may affect the potential for the restoration of bone stock and the durability of the re-revision reconstruction using multivariate analysis. At the time of re-revision, there were ten host acetabula with no significant defects, 14 with contained defects, nine with minor-column, seven with major-column defects and ten with pelvic discontinuity. When bone defects at re-revision were compared with those at the previous revision, there was restoration of bone stock in 31 hips, deterioration of bone stock in nine and remained unchanged in ten. This was a significant improvement (p <  0.001). Morselised allografting at the index revision was not associated with the restoration of bone stock. . In 17 hips (34%), re-revision was possible using a simple acetabular component without allograft, augments, rings or cages. There were 47 patients with a mean follow-up of 70 months (6 to 146) available for survival analysis. Within this group, the successful cases had a minimum follow-up of two years after re-revision. There were 22 clinical or radiological failures (46.7%), 18 of which were due to aseptic loosening. The five and ten year Kaplan–Meier survival rate was 75% (95% CI, 60 to 86) and 56% (95% CI, 40 to 70) respectively with aseptic loosening as the endpoint. The rate of aseptic loosening was higher for hips with pelvic discontinuity (p = 0.049) and less when the allograft had been in place for longer periods (p = 0.040). . The use of a cage or ring over structural allograft bone for massive uncontained defects in acetabular revision can restore host bone stock and facilitate subsequent re-revision surgery to a certain extent. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:319–24

The conventional method for reconstructing acetabular bone loss at revision surgery includes using structural bone allograft. The disadvantages of this technique promoted the advent of metallic but biocompatible porous implants to fill bone defects enhancing initial and long-term stability of the acetabular component. This paper presents the indications, surgical technique and the outcome of using porous metal acetabular augments for reconstructing acetabular defects. . Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B, Supple A:103–8

Femoral revision after cemented total hip replacement (THR) might include technical difficulties, following essential cement removal, which might lead to further loss of bone and consequently inadequate fixation of the subsequent revision stem.

Femoral impaction allografting has been widely used in revision surgery for the acetabulum, and subsequently for the femur. In combination with a primary cemented stem, impaction grafting allows for femoral bone restoration through incorporation and remodelling of the impacted morsellized bone graft by the host skeleton. Cavitary bone defects affecting meta-physis and diaphysis leading to a wide femoral shaft, are ideal indications for this technique. Cancellous allograft bone chips of 1 mm to 2 mm size are used, and tapered into the canal with rods of increasing diameters. To impact the bone chips into the femoral canal a prosthesis dummy of the same dimensions of the definitive cemented stem is driven into the femur to ensure that the chips are very firmly impacted. Finally, a standard stem is cemented into the neo-medullary canal using bone cement.

To date several studies have shown favourable results with this technique, with some excellent long-term results reported in independent clinical centres worldwide.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B, Supple A:92–4.

We report the results at a mean of 24.3 years (20 to 32) of 61 previously reported consecutive total hip replacements carried out on 44 patients with severe congenital hip disease, performed with reconstruction of the acetabulum with an impaction grafting technique known as cotyloplasty. The mean age of the patients at operation was 46.7 years (23 to 68) and all were women. The patients were followed post-operatively for a mean of 24.3 years (20 to 32), using the Merle d’Aubigné and Postel scoring system as modified by Charnley, and with serial radiographs. At the time of the latest follow-up, 28 acetabular components had been revised because of aseptic loosening at a mean of 15.9 years (6 to 26), and one at 40 days after surgery because of repeated dislocations. The overall survival rate for aseptic failure of the acetabular component at ten years was 93.1% (95% confidence interval (CI) 86.5 to 96.7) when 53 hips were at risk, and at 23 years was 56.1% (95% CI 49.4 to 62.8), when 22 hips remained at risk. These long-term results are considered satisfactory for the reconstruction of an acetabulum presenting with inadequate bone stock and circumferential segmental defects.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:887–92.

In this retrospective study we evaluated the proficiency of shelf autograft in the restoration of bone stock as part of primary total hip replacement (THR) for hip dysplasia, and in the results of revision arthroplasty after failure of the primary arthroplasty. Of 146 dysplastic hips treated by THR and a shelf graft, 43 were revised at an average of 156 months, 34 of which were suitable for this study (seven hips were excluded because of insufficient bone-stock data and two hips were excluded because allograft was used in the primary THR). The acetabular bone stock of the hips was assessed during revision surgery. The mean implant–bone contact was 58% (50% to 70%) at primary THR and 78% (40% to 100%) at the time of the revision, which was a significant improvement (p < 0.001). At primary THR all hips had had a segmental acetabular defect > 30%, whereas only five (15%) had significant segmental bone defects requiring structural support at the time of revision. In 15 hips (44%) no bone graft or metal augments were used during revision.

A total of 30 hips were eligible for the survival study. At a mean follow-up of 103 months (27 to 228), two aseptic and two septic failures had occurred. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis of the revision procedures demonstrated a ten-year survival rate of 93.3% (95% confidence interval (CI) 78 to 107) with clinical or radiological failure as the endpoint. The mean Oxford hip score was 38.7 (26 to 46) for non-revised cases at final follow-up.

Our results indicate that the use of shelf autografts during THR for dysplastic hips restores bone stock, contributing to the favourable survival of the revision arthroplasty should the primary procedure fail.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:777–81.

The term developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) describes a spectrum of disorders that results in abnormal development of the hip joint. If not treated successfully in childhood, these patients may go on to develop hip symptoms and/or secondary osteoarthritis in adulthood. In this review we describe the altered anatomy encountered in adults with DDH along with the management options, and the challenges associated with hip arthroscopy, osteotomies and arthroplasty for the treatment of DDH in young adults.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:732–7.