Elsevier

Journal of Orthopaedics

Volume 12, Supplement 2, December 2015, Pages S238-S243
Journal of Orthopaedics

Review Article
Clinical evaluation and surgical options in acetabular reconstruction: A literature review

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jor.2015.10.011Get rights and content

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to review the clinical indications for acetabular reconstruction in patients with underlying peri-prosthetic segmental and cavitary defects, evaluate steps in pre-operative planning, and present the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) and Paprosky classification systems to categorize acetabular defects. We also present a review of the current surgical techniques to reconstruct the acetabular socket which includes a cementless acetabular component with morselized bone, structural allograft, jumbo and oblong cups, reinforcement rings, bone cages, custom triflange acetabular constructs, and trabecular metal components.

Introduction

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is perhaps the most recognized operation in the field of orthopedic surgery and regarded as a benchmark treatment of end-stage hip joint disease. The aging population and growing incidence in obesity will continue to increase the number of hip replacements. Despite excellent clinical results, many patients outlive the typical lifespan of implants with approximately 17% of all primary hips eventually failing and requiring revision.1 Acetabular revision in the context of poor bone stock is a technically challenging procedure; therefore, it is imperative for the arthroplasty surgeon to understand the advantages and disadvantages of the available acetabular component systems. In this paper, we review clinical indications for acetabular revision, radiographic classification systems, and pre-operative planning. We also include a summary of available acetabular component systems and highlight unique features.

Section snippets

Clinical evaluation

Clinical presentation depends on the fundamental etiology for acetabular implant failure, which include aseptic loosening, infection, instability, wear, trauma, and osteolysis.2 Groin or buttock pain is a characteristic patient complaint associated with acetabular implant failure while thigh pain is often associated with femoral implant failure.2, 3 A comprehensive medical history and focused physical exam should be performed on all patients regardless of clinical presentation. Laboratory

Classification of acetabular defects

An ideal radiological classification system provides accurate and standardized algorithm to evaluate the extent of bone loss, assist in pre-operative planning and clinical management. Acetabular defects are routinely described using the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) and Paprosky classification system.

The AAOS classification system categorizes lesions into cavitary, segmental, combined cavitary and segmental, pelvic discontinuities, and arthrodesis.9 Cavitary defects are

Cavitary defects

Cementless hemispheric acetabular components are generally used for patients with cavitary defects. Small cavitary defects can be reamed with a larger size reamer to increase contact area between native bone and implant. The acetabular shell is then impacted into the socket and transacetabular screws are placed in the posterior quadrants to provide ancillary fixation to the ileum and ischium. Anterosuperior and anteroinferior placements of screws increase the risk of injury to external iliac

Segmental defects

Under circumstances of substantial superior segmental defects, the arthroplasty surgeon may consider placing the joint in a superiorly elevated position using a cementless hemispherical cup as described previously or restore hip center with supplementation of bulk allograft or using a larger size cup.

Custom triflange implants

Triflange implants are custom-made, porous coated titanium alloy components considered a final therapeutic salvage option in patients with pelvic discontinuity and/or prior radiation to pelvis. A triflange construct is designed from pelvis CT scans with metal subtraction software converted into a three-dimensional (3D) representation of the patient's hemipelvis. The implant manufacture generates individualized implants from the respective imaging (Fig. 4). Some authors have reported variable

Conclusion

In summary, many constructs are available to achieve sufficient acetabular bony contact and return hip center to normal anatomic position; including the use of bone cages, allografts, jumbo and oblong cups, triflange implants, and porous acetabular metal augments. It is important to understand the advantages and disadvantages of the available acetabular component systems to deal with poor bone stock.

Conflicts of interest

The authors have none to declare.

References (42)

  • S.W. Wachtl et al.

    The Burch-Schneider antiprotrusio cage in acetabular revision surgery: a mean follow-up of 12 years

    J Arthroplasty

    (2000)
  • D. Regis et al.

    Long-term results of anti-protrusio cage and massive allografts for the management of peri-prosthetic acetabular bone loss

    J Arthroplasty

    (2008)
  • J.P. Van Kleunen et al.

    Acetabular revisions using trabecular metal cups and augments

    J Arthroplasty

    (2009)
  • C.L. Peters et al.

    Acetabular revision with a modular anti-protrusio acetabular component

    J Arthroplasty

    (2004)
  • S.H. Weeden et al.

    The use of tantalum porous metal implants for Paprosky 3A and B defects

    J Arthroplasty

    (2007)
  • M. Abolghasemian et al.

    Cup-cage solution for pelvic discontinuity

    Semin Arthroplasty

    (2012)
  • R.P. Shah et al.

    Pelvic discontinuity: where are we today?

    Semin Arthroplasty

    (2014)
  • R.H. Choplin et al.

    Total hip arthroplasty in patients with bone deficiency of the acetabulum

    Radiographics

    (2008)
  • E.D. Taylor et al.

    Reconstruction options for acetabular revision

    World J Orthop

    (2012)
  • C. Reid et al.

    Revision total hip arthroplasty: addressing acetabular bone loss

    SA Orthop J

    (2012)
  • J.R. Leiberman

    American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Comprehensive Orthopaedic Review

    (2009)
  • Cited by (22)

    • Surgical management of hip prosthetic failure in metallosis: A case series and literature review

      2021, Journal of Orthopaedics
      Citation Excerpt :

      Various classifications based on acetabular bone loss can be used to help to choose the best management for cup revision. We used the Paprosky classification to plan the treatment, and focused on minimizing iatrogenic bone loss during implant removal and maximizing implant contact with host bone.20,21 In 11 cases (Table 4) a hemispherical cup fixed with screws was used.

    • The use of a triflange salvage system for catastrophic pelvic osteolysis after failed total hip arthroplasty

      2021, Journal of Orthopaedics
      Citation Excerpt :

      A triflange implant addresses acetabular lytic defects by providing multiple points of fixation outside of the acetabulum. Thin-cut CT scans are used to create a three-dimensional (3D) implant model with custom iliac, ischial, and pubic flanges that match the native anatomy.5,6,9 Additional standard measures to increase stability can also be implemented, such as lateralized or constrained liners, as well as femoral reconstruction with larger heads.9,14

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text