nach oben

Erschienen in:

11.12.2018 | Original Paper

The augment-and-modular-cage revision system for reconstruction of severe acetabular defects—two-year clinical and radiographic results

verfasst von: Philip P. Roessler, Max Jaenisch, Manuel Kuhlmann, Miriam Wacker, P. Johannes Wagenhäuser, Sascha Gravius, Dieter C. Wirtz

Erschienen in: International Orthopaedics | Ausgabe 10/2019

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

Acetabular revision of failed total hip arthroplasty (THA) is often associated with severe bone loss. Therefore, a variety of revision implant systems has been developed during recent years, with the augment-and-modular-cage system being one of the newest additions to this portfolio. Together with biologic downsizing by means of impaction bone grafting, this uncemented system promises a high modularity and versatility to treat all acetabular defects up to Paprosky types IIIa and IIIb without pelvic discontinuity. The aim of the present study was to evaluate first short-term results of its clinical application, both clinical functional and patient-reported as well as radiographic.

Methods

Forty-four patients (28 female, 16 male, mean age 70.9 ± 11.5 years) could be followed for a mean of 26 ± 10 months after acetabular revision with a novel augment-and-modular-cage system. Indications for revision included aseptic loosening (68%), septic loosening (16%), or others (16%) with bone loss Paprosky IIa up to IIIb without discontinuity. The modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) served as a primary outcome parameter. In addition, a number of patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) were collected including the Short Form 36 (SF-36), Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS), and Visual Analogue Scale for Hip Pain (VAS Hip) as well as overall satisfaction. Radiographic changes between the pre- and postoperative center of rotation (COR) and various criteria of implant failure served as secondary outcome parameters.

Results

No patients were lost to follow-up. Two implant-associated complications (partial flange breakage) without a need for revision surgery were detected, which represent a failure rate of 4.5%. Functional outcome as measured by mHHS increased from 49.4 ± 2.9 pre-operatively to 74.4 ± 3.1 at the latest follow-up (p < 0.001). PROMs showed significant improvements in all pain-related categories, while other quality-of-life measurements only exhibited positive tendencies towards improvement. VAS Hip significantly improved from 6.5 ± 0.7 pre-operatively to 2.2 ± 0.6 at the latest follow-up (p < 0.001). Radiographic evaluation showed that reconstruction of the COR was possible, referenced to the contralateral side. The COR could be lateralized by 5.0 mm (n.s.) and caudalized by 10.3 mm (p < 0.001) comparing pre-operative and post-operative states, with complete osseointegration in 95% of the cases.

Conclusions

Treatment with the augment-and-modular-cage system significantly improved clinical functional and patient-reported outcomes in cases of acetabular revision after failed THA. In addition, a good reconstruction of the COR could also be achieved. Therefore, this highly modular system can be considered as an effective treatment option in almost all cases of acetabular bone loss except for those of pelvic discontinuity. It offers the unique possibility of intra-operative implant customization according to the existing bone defect and host bone quality.

Labek G, Thaler M, Janda W et al (2011) Revision rates after total joint replacement: cumulative results from worldwide joint register datasets. J Bone Joint Surg Br 93:293–297. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.93B3.25467 CrossRefPubMed

Paprosky WG, Sporer SS, Murphy BP (2007) Addressing severe bone deficiency: what a cage will not do. J Arthroplasty 22:111–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2007.01.018 CrossRefPubMed

Mall NA, Nunley RM, Smith KE et al (2010) The fate of grafting acetabular defects during revision total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468:3286–3294. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-010-1427-0 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Sadri H, Pfander G, Siebenrock K-A et al (2008) Acetabular reinforcement ring in primary total hip arthroplasty: a minimum 10-year follow-up. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 128:869–877. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-008-0612-z CrossRefPubMed

García-Rey E, Cruz-Pardos A, Madero R (2015) The evolution of the technique of impaction bone grafting in femoral revision surgery has improved clinical outcome. A prospective mid-term study. J Arthroplast 30:95–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2014.08.028 CrossRef

Kosashvili Y, Backstein D, Safir O et al (2009) Acetabular revision using an anti-protrusion (ilio-ischial) cage and trabecular metal acetabular component for severe acetabular bone loss associated with pelvic discontinuity. J Bone Joint Surg Br 91:870–876. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.91B7.22181 CrossRefPubMed

Beckmann NA, Bitsch RG, Gondan M et al (2018) Comparison of the stability of three fixation techniques between porous metal acetabular components and augments. Bone Joint Res 7:282–288. https://doi.org/10.1302/2046-3758.74.BJR-2017-0198.R1 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Krishnan KM, Longstaff L, Partington P (2011) Acetabular reconstruction using morcellised bone with ring support—medium-term results at three to nine years. Acta Orthop Belg 77:61–67PubMed

Schmolders J, Friedrich MJ, Michel RD et al (2015) Acetabular defect reconstruction in revision hip arthroplasty with a modular revision system and biological defect augmentation. Int Orthop 39:623–630. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-014-2533-5 CrossRefPubMed

10.

Günther KP, Wegner T, Kirschner S, Hartmann A (2014) Modular reconstruction in acetabular revision with antiprotrusio cages and metal augments: the cage-and-augment system. Oper Orthop Traumatol 26:141–155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00064-013-0271-2 CrossRefPubMed

11.

Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR (1987) A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 40:373–383CrossRef

12.

Charnley J (1972) The long-term results of low-friction arthroplasty of the hip performed as a primary intervention. J Bone Joint Surg Br 54:61–76CrossRef

13.

Marx A, Beier A, Richter A et al (2016) Major acetabular defects treated with the Burch-Schneider antiprotrusion cage and impaction bone allograft in a large series: a 5- to 7- year follow-up study. Hip Int 26:585–590. https://doi.org/10.5301/hipint.5000388 CrossRefPubMed

14.

Ilyas I, Alrumaih HA, Kashif S et al (2015) Revision of type III and type IVB acetabular defects with Burch-Schneider anti-Protrusio cages. J Arthroplast 30:259–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2014.08.014 CrossRef

15.

Cucchi D, Gathen M, Streicher R, Wirtz DC (2018) Ceramic-on-ceramic in total hip replacement revision. Z Orthop Unfall 156:272–280. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-124767 CrossRefPubMed

16.

Wirtz DC, Wacker M, Jaenisch M, Roessler PP (2018) Acetabular revision arthroplasty with a novel cementless “augment-and-modular-cage” system (MRS-C): surgical technique and first clinical results. Oper Orthop Traumatol:1–10

17.

Paprosky WG, Perona PG, Lawrence JM (1994) Acetabular defect classification and surgical reconstruction in revision arthroplasty. A 6-year follow-up evaluation. J Arthroplast 9:33–44CrossRef

18.

Desbonnet P, Connes H, Escare P et al (2012) Total hip revision using a cup design with a peg to treat severe pelvic bone defects. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 98:346–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2012.01.006 CrossRefPubMed

19.

Lietman SA, Bhavnani K (2001) The partial pelvic replacement cup in severe acetabular defects. Orthopedics 24:1131–1135PubMed

20.

Söderman P, Malchau H (2001) Is the Harris hip score system useful to study the outcome of total hip replacement? Clin Orthop Relat Res:189–197

21.

Brazier JE, Harper R, Jones NM et al (1992) Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: new outcome measure for primary care. BMJ 305:160–164CrossRef

22.

Nilsdotter AK, Lohmander LS, Klässbo M, Roos EM (2003) Hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score (HOOS)—validity and responsiveness in total hip replacement. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 4:10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-4-10 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Brokelman RBG, Haverkamp D, van Loon C et al (2012) The validation of the visual analogue scale for patient satisfaction after total hip arthroplasty. Eur Orthop Traumatol 3:101–105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12570-012-0100-3 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

DeLee JG, Charnley J (1976) Radiological demarcation of cemented sockets in total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res:20–32

25.

Brooker AF, Bowerman JW, Robinson RA, Riley LH (1973) Ectopic ossification following total hip replacement. Incidence and a method of classification. J Bone Joint Surg Am 55:1629–1632CrossRef

26.

Bonnomet F, Vanhille W, Lefèbvre Y et al (2001) Failure of acetabular cups fixed with cement and thick embedded wire mesh. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 87:544–555PubMed

27.

Sculco PK, Ledford CK, Hanssen AD et al (2017) The evolution of the cup-cage technique for major acetabular defects: full and half cup-cage reconstruction. J Bone Joint Surg Am 99:1104–1110. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.16.00821 CrossRefPubMed

28.

Friedrich MJ, Schmolders J, Michel RD et al (2014) Management of severe periacetabular bone loss combined with pelvic discontinuity in revision hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop 38:2455–2461. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-014-2443-6 CrossRefPubMed

29.

Fink B, Grossmann A, Sebena P (2010) Exchange of acetabular cups with severe bone defects using antiprotrusion cages. Oper Orthop Traumatol 22:256–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00064-010-8025-x CrossRefPubMed

30.

Mahmoud AN, Sundberg M, Flivik G (2017) Comparable results with porous metal augments in combination with either cemented or uncemented cups in revision hip arthroplasty: an analysis of one hundred forty-seven revisions at a mean of five years. J Arthroplast 32:1612–1617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2016.12.007 CrossRef

31.

Schmolders J, Amvrazis G, Pennekamp PH et al (2017) Thirteen-year follow-up of a cementless femoral stem and a threaded acetabular cup in patients younger than fifty years of age. Int Orthop 41:39–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-016-3226-z CrossRefPubMed

32.

Jauregui JJ, Banerjee S, Cherian JJ et al (2015) Early outcomes of titanium-based highly-porous acetabular components in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 30:1187–1190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2015.02.013 CrossRef

33.

Borland WS, Bhattacharya R, Holland JP, Brewster NT (2012) Use of porous trabecular metal augments with impaction bone grafting in management of acetabular bone loss. Acta Orthop 83:347–352. https://doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2012.718518 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

34.

Lieberman JR, Dorey F, Shekelle P et al (1997) Outcome after total hip arthroplasty. Comparison of a traditional disease-specific and a quality-of-life measurement of outcome. J Arthroplast 12:639–645CrossRef

35.

Berry DJ (2004) Antiprotrusio cages for acetabular revision. Clin Orthop Relat Res:106–112CrossRef

36.

Gerber A, Pisan M, Zurakowski D, Isler B (2003) Ganz reinforcement ring for reconstruction of acetabular defects in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85-A:2358–2364CrossRef

Titel: The augment-and-modular-cage revision system for reconstruction of severe acetabular defects—two-year clinical and radiographic results
verfasst von: Philip P. Roessler
Max Jaenisch
Manuel Kuhlmann
Miriam Wacker
P. Johannes Wagenhäuser
Sascha Gravius
Dieter C. Wirtz
Publikationsdatum: 11.12.2018
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: International Orthopaedics / Ausgabe 10/2019
Print ISSN: 0341-2695
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-5195
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-4271-6

Arthropedia

Grundlagenwissen der Arthroskopie und Gelenkchirurgie. Erweitert durch Fallbeispiele, Videos und Abbildungen.
» Jetzt entdecken

Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Knie-TEP: Kein Vorteil durch antibiotikahaltigen Knochenzement

29.05.2024 Periprothetische Infektionen Nachrichten

Zur Zementierung einer Knie-TEP wird in Deutschland zu über 98% Knochenzement verwendet, der mit einem Antibiotikum beladen ist. Ob er wirklich besser ist als Zement ohne Antibiotikum, kann laut Registerdaten bezweifelt werden.

Häusliche Gewalt in der orthopädischen Notaufnahme oft nicht erkannt

28.05.2024 Häusliche Gewalt Nachrichten

In der Notaufnahme wird die Chance, Opfer von häuslicher Gewalt zu identifizieren, von Orthopäden und Orthopädinnen offenbar zu wenig genutzt. Darauf deuten die Ergebnisse einer Fragebogenstudie an der Sahlgrenska-Universität in Schweden hin.

Fehlerkultur in der Medizin – Offenheit zählt!

28.05.2024 Fehlerkultur Podcast

Darüber reden und aus Fehlern lernen, sollte das Motto in der Medizin lauten. Und zwar nicht nur im Sinne der Patientensicherheit. Eine negative Fehlerkultur kann auch die Behandelnden ernsthaft krank machen, warnt Prof. Dr. Reinhard Strametz. Ein Plädoyer und ein Leitfaden für den offenen Umgang mit kritischen Ereignissen in Medizin und Pflege.

Mehr Frauen im OP – weniger postoperative Komplikationen

21.05.2024 Allgemeine Chirurgie Nachrichten

Ein Frauenanteil von mindestens einem Drittel im ärztlichen Op.-Team war in einer großen retrospektiven Studie aus Kanada mit einer signifikanten Reduktion der postoperativen Morbidität assoziiert.

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Springer Medizin

The augment-and-modular-cage revision system for reconstruction of severe acetabular defects—two-year clinical and radiographic results