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:
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:
Trabecular metal (TM) augments are a relatively
new option for reconstructing segmental bone loss during acetabular
revision. We studied 34 failed hip replacements in 34 patients that
were revised between October 2003 and March 2010 using a TM acetabular
shell and one or two augments. The mean age of the patients at the
time of surgery was 69.3 years (46 to 86) and the mean follow-up
was 64.5 months (27 to 107). In all, 18 patients had a minor column
defect, 14 had a major column defect, and two were associated with
pelvic discontinuity. The hip centre of rotation was restored in
27 patients (79.4%). The Oxford hip score increased from a mean
of 15.4 points (6 to 25) before revision to a mean of 37.7 (29 to
47) at the final follow-up. There were three aseptic loosenings
of the construct, two of them in the patients with pelvic discontinuity.
One septic loosening also occurred in a patient who had previously
had an infected hip replacement. The augments remained stable in
two of the failed hips. Whenever there was a loose acetabular component
in contact with a stable augment, progressive metal debris shedding
was evident on the serial radiographs. Complications included another
deep infection treated without revision surgery. Good clinical and
radiological results can be expected for bone-deficient acetabula
treated by a TM cup and augment, but for pelvic discontinuities
this might not be a reliable option. Cite this article:
