nach oben

21.05.2021 | Original Paper

Long-term results of combined porous tantalum augments and titanium-coated cups for Paprosky type III bone defects in acetabular revision

verfasst von: Qiang Xiao, Bing Xu, Kai Zhou, Tingxian Ling, Mingcheng Yuan, Fuxing Pei, Zongke Zhou

Erschienen in: International Orthopaedics | Ausgabe 7/2021

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

The use of porous tantalum augments and titanium-coated cups in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) with acetabular defects has shown satisfactory outcomes in our centre. The aim of this study was to report the long-term radiological and clinical outcomes of using this combination for Paprosky type III acetabular bone defects in acetabular revision.

Patients and methods

Between January 2007 and January 2015, 45 patients with Paprosky type III acetabular defects underwent acetabular revision using a combination of porous tantalum augments and titanium-coated cups. Among these, 41 patients (41 hips) had complete follow-up. Thirty-one patients had a Paprosky type IIIA defect, and ten patients had a Paprosky type IIIB defect. No patients had pelvic discontinuity. There were 20 males and 21 females with an average age of 63.2 years (range 35–80) at the time of revision surgery.

Results

The mean follow-up was 122.8 months (range 69–165). The Harris Hip Score (HHS) improved significantly from 32.1 points (range 17–58) pre-operatively to 85.3 points (63–98) at the last follow-up. The Short Form-12 (SF-12) and Hip Dysfunction and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) improved significantly for each item at the last follow-up. Two patients had a high hip centre post-operatively. One patient had recurrent dislocation but did not require re-revision. No further revision of the acetabular components was required, and all hips remained stable at the last follow-up with bony ingrowth of the acetabular components according to the criteria of Moore et al.

Conclusion

The combination of tantalum augments and conventional titanium-coated cups achieved satisfactory long-term radiographic and clinical outcomes for Paprosky type III acetabular bone defects without pelvic discontinuity.

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

Sheth NP, Nelson CL, Springer BD et al (2013) Acetabular bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty: evaluation and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 21:128–139CrossRef

Bobyn JD, Poggie RA, Krygier JJ et al (2004) Clinical validation of a structural porous tantalum biomaterial for adult reconstruction. J Bone Joint Surg A 86-A(Suppl 2):123–9CrossRef

O’Neill CJ, Creedon SB, Brennan SA et al (2018) Acetabular revision using trabecular metal augments for Paprosky type 3 defects. J Arthroplasty 33:823–828CrossRef

Jenkins DR, Odland AN, Sierra RJ et al (2017) Minimum five-year outcomes with porous tantalum acetabular cup and augment construct in complex revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 99:e49CrossRef

Flecher X, Appy B, Parratte S et al (2017) Use of porous tantalum components in Paprosky two and three acetabular revision. A minimum five-year follow-up of fifty one hips. Int Orthop 41:911–6CrossRef

Whitehouse MR, Masri BA, Duncan CP et al (2015) Continued good results with modular trabecular metal augments for acetabular defects in hip arthroplasty at 7 to 11 years. Clin Orthop Relat Res 473:521–527CrossRef

Löchel J, Janz V, Hipfl C et al (2017) Reconstruction of acetabular defects with porous tantalum shells and augments in revision total hip arthroplasty at ten-year follow-up. Bone Joint J 101-b:311–6CrossRef

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 Arthroplasty 32:1612–1617CrossRef

10.

Borland WS, Bhattacharya R, Holland JP et al (2012) Use of porous trabecular metal augments with impaction bone grafting in management of acetabular bone loss. Acta Orthop 83:347–352CrossRef

11.

Gehrke T, Bangert Y, Schwantes B et al (2013) Acetabular revision in THA using tantalum augments combined with impaction bone grafting. Hip Int 23:359–365CrossRef

12.

Mäkinen TJ, Abolghasemian M, Watts E et al (2017) Management of massive acetabular bone defects in revision arthroplasty of the hip using a reconstruction cage and porous metal augment. Bone Joint J 99-b:607–13CrossRef

13.

Ling TX, Li JL, Zhou K et al (2018) The use of porous tantalum augments for the reconstruction of acetabular defect in primary total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 33:453–459CrossRef

14.

DeLee JG, Charnley J (1976) Radiological demarcation of cemented sockets in total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 121:20–32

15.

Callaghan JJ, Salvati EA, Pellicci PM et al (1985) Results of revision for mechanical failure after cemented total hip replacement, 1979 to 1982. A two to five-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 67:1074–85CrossRef

16.

Abolghasemian M, Tangsataporn S, Sternheim A et al (2013) Combined trabecular metal acetabular shell and augment for acetabular revision with substantial bone loss: a mid-term review. Bone Joint J 95-b:166–72CrossRef

17.

Moore MS, McAuley JP, Young AM et al (2006) Radiographic signs of osseointegration in porous-coated acetabular components. Clin Orthop Relat Res 444:176–183CrossRef

18.

Harris WH (1969) Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 51:737–55CrossRef

19.

Klässbo M, Larsson E, Mannevik E (2003) Hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score. An extension of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. Scand J Rheumatol 32:46–51CrossRef

20.

Ware JE, Kosinski M, Keller SD (1996) A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care 34:220–233CrossRef

21.

Blumenfeld TJ, Meehan JP (2014) The Use of Augment Devices in Revision Acetabular Surgery. JBJS Rev 2(3)

22.

Flecher X, Appy B, Parratte S et al (2017) Use of porous tantalum components in Paprosky two and three acetabular revision A minimum five-year follow-up of fifty one hips. Int Orthop 41:911–6CrossRef

23.

Dwivedi C, Gokhale S, Khim HG et al (2017) Acetabular defect reconstruction with trabecular metal augments: study with minimum one-year follow-up. Hip Pelvis 29:168–175CrossRef

24.

Eachempati KK, Malhotra R, Pichai S et al (2018) Results of trabecular metal augments in Paprosky IIIA and IIIB defects: a multicentre study. Bone Joint J 100-b:903–8CrossRef

25.

Grappiolo G, Loppini M, Longo UG et al (2015) Trabecular metal augments for the management of Paprosky type III defects without pelvic discontinuity. J Arthroplasty 30:1024–1029CrossRef

26.

Del Gaizo DJ, Kancherla V, Sporer SM et al (2012) Tantalum augments for Paprosky IIIA defects remain stable at midterm followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470:395–401CrossRef

27.

Lingaraj K, Teo YH, Bergman N (2009) The management of severe acetabular bone defects in revision hip arthroplasty using modular porous metal components. J Bone Joint Surg Br 91:1555–1560CrossRef

28.

Flecher X, Sporer S, Paprosky W (2008) Management of severe bone loss in acetabular revision using a trabecular metal shell. J Arthroplasty 23:949–955CrossRef

29.

Weeden SH, Schmidt RH (2007) The use of tantalum porous metal implants for Paprosky 3A and 3B defects. J Arthroplasty 22:151–155CrossRef

30.

Issack PS (2013) Use of porous tantalum for acetabular reconstruction in revision hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 95:1981–1987CrossRef

31.

Hooten JP Jr, Engh CA, Heekin RD et al (1996) Structural bulk allografts in acetabular reconstruction. Analysis of two grafts retrieved at post-mortem. J Bone Joint Surg Br 78:270–5CrossRef

32.

García-Rey E, Madero R, García-Cimbrelo E (2015) THA revisions using impaction allografting with mesh is durable for medial but not lateral acetabular defects. Clin Orthop Relat Res 473:3882–3891CrossRef

33.

Hooten JP Jr, Engh CA Jr, Engh CA (1994) Failure of structural acetabular allografts in cementless revision hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 76:419–422CrossRef

34.

Bozic KJ, Freiberg AA, Harris WH (2004) The high hip center. Clin Orthop Relat Res 420:101–105

35.

Karaismailoglu B, Erdogan F, Kaynak G (2019) High hip center reduces the dynamic hip range of motion and increases the hip load: a gait analysis study in hip arthroplasty patients with unilateral developmental dysplasia. J Arthroplasty 34:1267–72.e1CrossRef

36.

Emerson RH Jr, Head WC (1993) Dealing with the deficient acetabulum in revision hip arthroplasty: the importance of implant migration and use of the jumbo cup. Semin Arthroplasty 4:2–8PubMed

37.

Abolghasemian M, Tangsaraporn S, Drexler M et al (2014) The challenge of pelvic discontinuity: cup-cage reconstruction does better than conventional cages in mid-term. Bone Joint J 96-b:195–200CrossRef

38.

Taunton MJ, Fehring TK, Edwards P et al (2012) Pelvic discontinuity treated with custom triflange component: a reliable option. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470:428–434CrossRef

39.

De Martino I, Strigelli V, Cacciola G et al (2019) Survivorship and clinical outcomes of custom triflange acetabular components in revision total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review. J Arthroplasty 34:2511–2518CrossRef

40.

Sporer SM, Bottros JJ, Hulst JB et al (2012) Acetabular distraction: an alternative for severe defects with chronic pelvic discontinuity? Clin Orthop Relat Res 470:3156–3163CrossRef

Titel: Long-term results of combined porous tantalum augments and titanium-coated cups for Paprosky type III bone defects in acetabular revision
verfasst von: Qiang Xiao
Bing Xu
Kai Zhou
Tingxian Ling
Mingcheng Yuan
Fuxing Pei
Zongke Zhou
Publikationsdatum: 21.05.2021
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: International Orthopaedics / Ausgabe 7/2021
Print ISSN: 0341-2695
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-5195
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-021-05075-5

Arthropedia

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

Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

26.04.2024 | Hüft-TEP | Nachrichten

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

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

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

Long-term results of combined porous tantalum augments and titanium-coated cups for Paprosky type III bone defects in acetabular revision

Abstract

Purpose

Patients and methods

Results

Conclusion

Arthropedia

Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Notfall-TEP der Hüfte ist auch bei 90-Jährigen machbar

Arthroskopie kann Knieprothese nicht hinauszögern

Therapiestart mit Blutdrucksenkern erhöht Frakturrisiko

Ärztliche Empathie hilft gegen Rückenschmerzen

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Purpose

Patients and methods

Results

Conclusion

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Arthropedia

Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Notfall-TEP der Hüfte ist auch bei 90-Jährigen machbar

Arthroskopie kann Knieprothese nicht hinauszögern

Therapiestart mit Blutdrucksenkern erhöht Frakturrisiko

Ärztliche Empathie hilft gegen Rückenschmerzen

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie