Impaction bone grafting for acetabular reconstruction: mean 5.5-year results in Japanese patients

Post-operative hip centre restoration and migration after impaction bone grafting in revision and complex primary hip arthroplasty

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES

Although impaction grafting proved efficacy in the reconstruction of acetabular defects in primary and revision hip arthroplasty, its role in large segmental defects is still debatable. Our objective is to determine hip centre restoration and last follow-up migration after acetabular reconstruction with impaction grafting in different types of acetabular defects.

METHODS

This is a single-centre retrospective radiographic study of (107) total hip arthroplasty (42 primary and 65 revision) in (104) patients using impaction grafting. The available radiographs were examined for normal, preoperative, immediate postoperative, and last follow-up vertical (Y) and horizontal (X) hip centre. Maximum acetabular defect distance (MADD), presence, and size of the mesh were recorded.

RESULTS

In type I and II AAOS defects, the post-operative hip centre was not significantly different from the normal hip centre on the contralateral healthy side. In type III defects, there was a significant variation between the normal hip centre and the post-operative hip centre (P value 0.034 and 0.001 for Y and X, respectively). At 44-month follow-up of 36 hips, 31 (86%) hips migrated. The mean migration ± SD was 5.72 ± 3.7, 2, 4.15 ± 1.2, and 11.26 ± 3.9 mm for types I, II, and III, respectively (P value 0.211). Hips with MADD > 15 mm, especially with large mesh sizes migrate significantly more (P value = 0.042, 0.037, and 0.039, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Hip centre restoration was better, and migration was less for type I and II AAOS rather than for type III. Other options for reconstruction should be considered.

Massive bone defect compromises postoperative cup survivorship of acetabular revision hip arthroplasty with impaction bone grafting

We evaluated 66 acetabular revision arthroplasties using cemented cup with impaction bone grafting (IBG) to detect the extent that bone defect affects the outcome. We defined the maximum acetabular defect distance (MADD), which indicates the greatest depth of the grafted layer. Cup survival analysis with aseptic loosening as the endpoint revealed that the "MADD≤20mm" group showed higher survivorship than the "MADD>20mm" group (95% vs. 74%, P=0.034), and that the simple-wall-defect group (none or one mesh used) showed higher survivorship than the complex-wall-defect group (two meshes used) (96% vs. 73%, P=0.044). A favorable indication for acetabular IBG reconstruction is cases in which those cups can be placed at≤20mm MADD with a simple wall defect.

The results of acetabular impaction grafting in 129 primary cemented total hip arthroplasties

Between 1995 and 2003, 129 cemented primary THAs were performed using full acetabular impaction grafting to reconstruct acetabular deficiencies. These were classified as cavitary in 74 and segmental in 55 hips. Eighty-one patients were reviewed at mean 9.1 (6.2-14.3) years post-operatively. There were seven acetabular component revisions due to aseptic loosening, and a further 11 cases that had migrated >5mm or tilted >5° on radiological review - ten of which reported no symptoms. Kaplan-Meier analysis of revisions for aseptic loosening demonstrates 100% survival at nine years for cavitary defects compared to 82.6% for segmental defects. Our results suggest that the medium-term survival of this technique is excellent when used for purely cavitary defects but less predictable when used with large rim meshes in segmental defects.