Aims

The use of a porous metal shell supported by two augments with the ‘footing’ technique is one solution to manage Paprosky IIIB acetabular defects in revision total hip arthroplasty. The aim of this study was to assess the medium-term implant survival and radiological and clinical outcomes of this technique.

Aims. The aims of this study were to determine the success of a reconstruction algorithm used in major acetabular bone loss, and to further define the indications for custom-made implants in major acetabular bone loss. Methods. We reviewed a consecutive series of Paprosky type III acetabular defects treated according to a reconstruction algorithm. IIIA defects were planned to use a superior augment and hemispherical acetabular component. IIIB defects were planned to receive either a hemispherical acetabular component plus augments, a cup-cage reconstruction, or a custom-made implant. We used national digital health records and registry reports to identify any reoperation or re-revision procedure and Oxford Hip Score (OHS) for patient-reported outcomes. Implant survival was determined via Kaplan-Meier analysis. Results. A total of 105 procedures were carried out in 100 patients (five bilateral) with a mean age of 73 years (42 to 94). In the IIIA defects treated, 72.0% (36 of 50) required a porous metal augment; the remaining 14 patients were treated with a hemispherical acetabular component alone. In the IIIB defects, 63.6% (35 of 55) underwent reconstruction as planned with 20 patients who actually required a hemispherical acetabular component alone. At mean follow-up of 7.6 years, survival was 94.3% (95% confidence interval 97.4 to 88.1) for all-cause revision and the overall dislocation rate was 3.8% (4 of 105). There was no difference observed in survival between type IIIA and type IIIB defects and whether a hemispherical implant alone was used for the reconstruction or not. The mean gain in OHS was 16 points. Custom-made implants were only used in six cases, in patients with either a mega-defect in which the anteroposterior diameter > 80 mm, complex pelvic discontinuity, and massive bone loss in a small pelvis. Conclusion. Our findings suggest that a reconstruction algorithm can provide a successful approach to reconstruction in major acetabular bone loss. The use of custom implants has been defined in this series and accounts for < 5% of cases. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(5 Supple B):47–53

Aims. Pelvic discontinuity is a challenging acetabular defect without a consensus on surgical management. Cup-cage reconstruction is an increasingly used treatment strategy. The present study evaluated implant survival, clinical and radiological outcomes, and complications associated with the cup-cage construct. Methods. We included 53 cup-cage construct (51 patients) implants used for hip revision procedures for pelvic discontinuity between January 2003 and January 2022 in this retrospective review. Mean age at surgery was 71.8 years (50.0 to 92.0; SD 10.3), 43/53 (81.1%) were female, and mean follow-up was 6.4 years (0.02 to 20.0; SD 4.6). Patients were implanted with a Trabecular Metal Revision Shell with either a ZCA cage (n = 12) or a TMARS cage (n = 40, all Zimmer Biomet). Pelvic discontinuity was diagnosed on preoperative radiographs and/or intraoperatively. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed, with failure defined as revision of the cup-cage reconstruction. Results. The five-year all-cause survival for cup-cage reconstruction was 73.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 61.4 to 85.4), while the ten- and 15-year survival was 63.7% (95% CI 46.8 to 80.6). Survival due to aseptic loosening was 93.4% (95% CI 86.2 to 100.0) at five, ten, and 15 years. The rate of revision for aseptic loosening, infection, and dislocation was 3/53 (5.7%), 7/53 (13.2%), and 6/53 (11.3%), respectively. The mean leg length discrepancy improved (p < 0.001) preoperatively from a mean of 18.2 mm (0 to 80; SD 15.8) to 7.0 mm (0 to 35; SD 9.8) at latest follow-up. The horizontal and vertical hip centres improved (p < 0.001) preoperatively from a mean of 9.2 cm (5.6 to 17.5; SD 2.3) to 10.1 cm (6.2 to 13.4; SD 2.1) and 9.3 cm (4.7 to 15.8; SD 2.5) to 8.0 cm (3.7 to 12.3; SD 1.7), respectively. Conclusion. Cup-cage reconstruction provides acceptable outcomes in the management of pelvic discontinuity. One in four constructs undergo revision within five years, most commonly for periprosthetic joint infection, dislocation, or aseptic loosening. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(5 Supple B):66–73

The advent of modular porous metal augments has ushered in a new form of treatment for acetabular bone loss. The function of an augment can be seen as reducing the size of a defect or reconstituting the anterosuperior/posteroinferior columns and/or allowing supplementary fixation. Depending on the function of the augment, the surgeon can decide on the sequence of introduction of the hemispherical shell, before or after the augment. Augments should always, however, be used with cement to form a unit with the acetabular component. Given their versatility, augments also allow the use of a hemispherical shell in a position that restores the centre of rotation and biomechanics of the hip. Progressive shedding or the appearance of metal debris is a particular finding with augments and, with other radiological signs of failure, should be recognized on serial radiographs. Mid- to long-term outcomes in studies reporting the use of augments with hemispherical shells in revision total hip arthroplasty have shown rates of survival of > 90%. However, a higher risk of failure has been reported when augments have been used for patients with chronic pelvic discontinuity.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(4):312–318.

Aims. Dislocation remains a leading cause of failure following revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). While dual-mobility (DM) bearings have been shown to mitigate this risk, options are limited when retaining or implanting an uncemented shell without modular DM options. In these circumstances, a monoblock DM cup, designed for cementing, can be cemented into an uncemented acetabular shell. The goal of this study was to describe the implant survival, complications, and radiological outcomes of this construct. Methods. We identified 64 patients (65 hips) who had a single-design cemented DM cup cemented into an uncemented acetabular shell during revision THA between 2018 and 2020 at our institution. Cups were cemented into either uncemented cups designed for liner cementing (n = 48; 74%) or retained (n = 17; 26%) acetabular components. Median outer head diameter was 42 mm. Mean age was 69 years (SD 11), mean BMI was 32 kg/m. 2. (SD 8), and 52% (n = 34) were female. Survival was assessed using Kaplan-Meier methods. Mean follow-up was two years (SD 0.97). Results. There were nine cemented DM cup revisions: three for periprosthetic joint infection, three for acetabular aseptic loosening from bone, two for dislocation, and one for a broken cup-cage construct. The two-year survivals free of aseptic DM revision and dislocation were both 92%. There were five postoperative dislocations, all in patients with prior dislocation or abductor deficiency. On radiological review, the DM cup remained well-fixed at the cemented interface in all but one case. Conclusion. While dislocation was not eliminated in this series of complex revision THAs, this technique allowed for maximization of femoral head diameter and optimization of effective acetabular component position during cementing. Of note, there was only one failure at the cemented interface. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(4):352–358

Aims

The aim of this study was to assess the clinical and radiological results of patients who were revised using a custom-made triflange acetabular component (CTAC) for component loosening and pelvic discontinuity (PD) after previous total hip arthroplasty (THA).

Aims

Pelvic discontinuity is a rare but increasingly common complication of total hip arthroplasty (THA). This single-centre study evaluated the performance of custom-made triflange acetabular components in acetabular reconstruction with pelvic discontinuity by determining: 1) revision and overall implant survival rates; 2) discontinuity healing rate; and 3) Harris Hip Score (HHS).

Aims

Improvements in functional results and long-term survival are variable following conversion of hip fusion to total hip arthroplasty (THA) and complications are high. The aim of the study was to analyze the clinical and functional results in patients who underwent conversion of hip fusion to THA using a consistent technique and uncemented implants.

Aims

The aim of this study was to present the long-term surgical outcomes, complications, implant survival, and causes of implant failure in patients treated with the modified Harrington procedure using antegrade large diameter pins.

Aims

The use of trabecular metal (TM) shells supported by augments has provided good mid-term results after revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) in patients with a bony defect of the acetabulum. The aim of this study was to assess the long-term implant survivorship and radiological and clinical outcomes after acetabular revision using this technique.

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. Patients and Methods. We undertook a retrospective, single-centre series of 35 hips in 34 patients (seven male, 27 female) treated with a cup-cage construct using a trabecular metal shell in conjunction with a titanium cage, for severe acetabular bone loss between 2011 and 2015. The mean age at the time of surgery was 70 years (42 to 85) and all patients had an acetabular defect graded as Paprosky Type 2C through to 3B, with 24 hips (69%) having PD. The mean follow-up was 47 months (25 to 84). Results. The cumulative five-year survivorship of the implant with revision for any cause was 89% (95% confidence interval (CI) 72 to 96) with eight hips at risk. No revision was required for aseptic loosening; however, one patient with one hip (3%) required removal of the ischial flange of the cage due to sciatic nerve irritation. Two patients (6%; two hips) suffered from hip dislocation, whereas one patient (one hip) required revision surgery with cement fixation of a dual-mobility acetababular component into a well-fixed cup-cage construct. Two patients (6%; two hips) developed periprosthetic infection. One patient was successfully controlled with a two-stage revision surgery, while the other patient underwent excision arthroplasty due to severe medical comorbidities. For the whole series, the Harris Hip Score significantly improved from a mean of 30 (15 to 51) preoperatively to 71 (40 to 89) at the latest follow-up (p < 0.001). Conclusion. Our findings suggest that cup-cage reconstruction is a viable option for major segmental bone defects involving the posterior column and PD. It allows adequate restoration of the acetabulum centre with generally good stability and satisfactory postoperative function. Instability and infection remain drawbacks in these challenging revision cases. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:1442–48

Aims

The aim of this study was to examine the results of the acetabular distraction technique in achieving implantation of a stable construct, obtaining biological fixation, and producing healing of chronic pelvic discontinuity at revision total hip arthroplasty.

Aims

The advent of trabecular metal (TM) augments has revolutionized the management of severe bone defects during acetabular reconstruction. The purpose of this study was to evaluate patients undergoing revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) with the use of TM augments for reconstruction of Paprosky IIIA and IIIB defects.

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.

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.

We evaluated the accuracy with which a custom-made acetabular component could be positioned at revision arthroplasty of the hip in patients with a Paprosky type 3 acetabular defect.

A total of 16 patients with a Paprosky type 3 defect underwent revision surgery using a custom-made trabecular titanium implant. There were four men and 12 women with a median age of 67 years (48 to 79). The planned inclination (INCL), anteversion (AV), rotation and centre of rotation (COR) of the implant were compared with the post-operative position using CT scans.

A total of seven implants were malpositioned in one or more parameters: one with respect to INCL, three with respect to AV, four with respect to rotation and five with respect to the COR.

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study in which CT data acquired for the pre-operative planning of a custom-made revision acetabular implant have been compared with CT data on the post-operative position. The results are encouraging.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B:780–5.

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.

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 use of ilioischial cage reconstruction for pelvic discontinuity has been replaced by the Trabecular Metal (Zimmer, Warsaw, Indiana) cup-cage technique in our institution, due to the unsatisfactory outcome of using a cage alone in this situation. We report the outcome of 26 pelvic discontinuities in 24 patients (20 women and four men, mean age 65 years (44 to 84)) treated by the cup-cage technique at a mean follow-up of 82 months (12 to 113) and compared them with a series of 19 pelvic discontinuities in 19 patients (18 women and one man, mean age 70 years (42 to 86)) treated with a cage at a mean follow-up of 69 months (1 to 170). The clinical and radiological outcomes as well as the survivorship of the groups were compared. In all, four of the cup-cage group (15%) and 13 (68%) of the cage group failed due to septic or aseptic loosening. The seven-year survivorship was 87.2% (95% confidence interval (CI) 71 to 103) for the cup-cage group and 49.9% (95% CI 15 to 84) for the cage-alone group (p = 0.009). There were four major complications in the cup-cage group and nine in the cage group. Radiological union of the discontinuity was found in all successful cases in the cup-cage group and three of the successful cage cases. Three hips in the cup-cage group developed early radiological migration of the components, which stabilised with a successful outcome. Cup-cage reconstruction is a reliable technique for treating pelvic discontinuity in mid-term follow-up and is preferred to ilioischial cage reconstruction. If the continuity of the bone graft at the discontinuity site is not disrupted, early migration of the components does not necessarily result in failure. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:195–200