Tantalum Augments Combined with Antiprotrusio Cages for Massive Acetabular Defects in Revision Arthroplasty

Acetabular Augments Used in Revision Hip Arthroplasty: Minimum 10-year Follow-Up of Implant Survivorships, Functional Scores, and Radiographic Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Acetabular bone loss is a major challenge in the setting of revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). Porous tantalum augments have emerged as a viable solution to acetabular bone loss in revision THA. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the survivorship, clinical, and radiological outcomes of these implants.

METHODS

We identified 104 augment implants from our retrospective chart review of revision THA from June 2003 to July 2013. Of these patients, 75 (72.1%) were women, the mean age at surgery was 66 years (range, 27 to 87), and the mean follow-up was 13.2 years (range, 0.25 to 18.2). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed, with failure defined as revision for aseptic loosening of the acetabular reconstruction.

RESULTS

There was significant improvement in the Harris Hip Score from 40.0 to 77.3 (P < 0.001) and the Oxford Hip Score from 14.9 to 36.3 (P < 0.001). Survivorship for failure due to aseptic loosening was 98.8% (95% CI [confidence interval] 96.4 to 100) at 24 months with 60 hips at risk, and 90.4% (95% CI 83.0 to 97.8) at 60 and 120 months with 38 and 18 hips at risk, respectively. The overall number of complications was 34 (32.7%). Of these complications, 21 (20.2%) required repeat revision surgery. The revision rate due to aseptic loosening of the augment, infection, dislocation, aseptic loosening of the femoral component, reconstruction failure, and heterotopic ossification was seven (6.7%), five (4.8%), four (3.8%), two (1.9%), two (1.9%), and one (0.96%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of acetabular defects during revision THA using porous tantalum augments provides acceptable implant survivorship and favorable clinical outcomes at mid-term (5 to 10 years) and long-term (> 10 years) follow-up.

Porous Tantalum Acetabular Cups in Primary and Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: What Has Been the Experience So Far?-A Systematic Literature Review

BACKGROUND

The global population, especially in the Western world, is constantly aging and the need for total hip arthroplasties has rocketed, hence there has been a notable increase in revision total hip arthroplasty cases. As time has passed, a considerable developments in science and medicine have been attained which have also resulted in the evolution of both surgical techniques and implants. Continuous improvements have allowed large bore bearings to be utilized which provide an increased range of motion, with ameliorated stability and a very low rate of wear. The trend for almost the last two decades has been the employment of porous tantalum acetabular cups. Several studies exist comparing them with other conventional methods for total hip arthroplasties, exhibiting promising short and midterm results.

METHODS

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and a Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) were used to identify published studies in a comprehensive search up to February 2023, and these studies were reviewed by the authors of the article. Specific rigorous pre-determined inclusion and exclusion criteria were implemented.

RESULTS

Fifty-one studies met our inclusion criteria and were involved in the systematic review. Sixteen studies examined postoperative clinical and radiological outcomes of using a tantalum cup in primary and revision total hip arthroplasty, whilst four biomechanical studies proved the superiority of tantalum acetabular components. Five articles provided a thorough comparison between tantalum and titanium acetabular cups, while the other studies analyzed long-terms results and complication rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Porous tantalum acetabular cups appear to be a valuable option in revision total hip arthroplasty, providing clinical improvement, radiological stability, and promising long-term outcomes. However, ongoing research, longer follow-up periods, and careful consideration of patient factors are essential to further validate and refine the use of tantalum in various clinical scenarios.

Does Using Highly Porous Tantalum in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Reduce the Rate of Periprosthetic Joint Infection? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Studies suggest tantalum (Ta) implants may have inherent antibacterial properties. However, there is no consensus regarding the effectiveness of Ta in preventing periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA).

METHODS

We searched 5 main databases for articles reporting the rate of PJI following rTHA using Ta implants from inception to February 2022. The PJI rates of the Ta group were meta-analyzed, compared with the control group, and represented as relative risks (RRs) in forest plots.

RESULTS

We identified 67 eligible studies (28,414 joints) for assessing the prevalence of PJI following rTHA using Ta implants. Among these studies, only 9 compared the Ta implant group with a control group. The overall PJI rate following rTHA using Ta implants was 2.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.2%-3.8%), while it was 5.7% (95% CI = 4.1%-7.8%) if only septic revisions were considered. Comparing the Ta and control groups showed a significantly lower PJI rate following all-cause rTHA with an RR = 0.80 (95% CI = 0.65-0.98, P < .05). There was a trend toward lower reinfection rates in the Ta group after rTHA in septic cases, although the difference was not statistically significant (RR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.44-1.29, P = .30).

CONCLUSIONS

Ta implants are associated with a lower PJI rate following all-cause rTHA but not after septic causes. Despite positive results, the clinical significance of Ta still remains unclear since the PJI rate was only reduced by 20%.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Treatment of Severe Acetabular Defects With an Antiprotrusio Cage and Trabecular Metal Augments - Clinical and Radiographic Results After a Mean Follow-Up of 6.6 Years

BACKGROUND

Large acetabular bone defects present a serious challenge in revision total hip arthroplasty. The off-label use of antiprotrusio cages in combination with tantalum augments is a promising treatment option in these difficult situations.

METHODS

Between 2008 and 2013, 100 consecutive patients underwent acetabular cup revision with a cage-augment combination in Paprosky 2 and 3 defect types (including pelvic discontinuities). There were 59 patients available for follow-up. The primary endpoint was the explantation of the cage-and-augment construct. The secondary endpoint was acetabular cup revision for any reason. Also, radiographic and functional outcomes (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, Harris Hip Score) were evaluated. Implant survival rates were determined using a Kaplan-Meier analysis. The significance level was set at P < .05.

RESULTS

Explantation-free survivorship of the "Cage-and-Augment" system was 91.9% after a mean follow-up of 6.2 years (range, 0 to 12.8). All 6 explantations were due to periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). The overall revision-free implant survival rate was 85.7%, including 6 additional liner revisions due to instability. In addition, 6 early PJI occurred, which were successfully treated with debridement, irrigation, and implant retention. We did observe one patient who had radiographic loosening of the construct without necessity for treatment.

CONCLUSION

The combination of an antiprotrusio cage with tantalum augments is a promising technique in treating large acetabular defects. A major risk of PJI and instability due to large bone and soft tissue defects needs special attention.

Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Utilizing an Acetabular Reinforcement Ring with a Metal Augment: A Minimum Eight-Year Follow-Up Study

Background and Objectives: An acetabular reinforcement ring (ARR) with a structural allograft is conventionally used to treat large acetabular bone defects or discontinuity during revision hip arthroplasty. However, ARR is prone to failure due to bone resorption and lack of incorporation. Here, we investigated the surgical outcomes of the patients who underwent revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) using ARR combined with a metal augment (MA). Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed data from 10 consecutive patients who had a minimum 8-year follow-up after revision hip arthroplasty using ARR with MA in Paprosky type III acetabular defect. We collected patient demographics, surgical details, clinical scores (including Harris Hip Score (HHS)), postoperative complications, and 8-year survival rates. Results: Six male and four female patients were included. The mean age was 64.3 years, and the mean follow-up duration was 104.3 months (96.0-112.0 months). Trauma-related diagnosis was the most common reason for index surgery. Three patients underwent all component revision, and seven underwent cup revision. Six were confirmed as Paprosky type IIIA and four as type IIIB. The mean HHS at the final follow-up was 81.5 (72-91). One patient was diagnosed with prosthetic joint infection at the 3-month follow-up; therefore, the minimum 8-year survival rate with our technique was 90.0% (95% confidence interval, 90.3-118.5%). Conclusions: The satisfactory mid- to long-term results of revision THA suggest that ARR combined with tantalum MA is a viable revision option for treating severe acetabular defects with pelvic discontinuity.

[Strategies for cup revision]

Hip arthroplasty revision management can range from simple procedures using standard implants to complex surgical interventions requiring the combined use of revision cups, metal augments, bone grafts, and antiprotrusio cages. The adequate restoration of biomechanics and function of the hip joint with reconstruction of the original center of rotation can be challenging. We present an overview of various available techniques with the associated implant and anchoring strategies and the respective clinical results depending on the acetabular defect situation.

[Partial or full component exchange in hip revision? : The relevance of off-label use and mix & match]

Off-label use is frequently practiced in hip revision arthroplasty, as there may be indications for the application of implants for purposes outside the one the manufacturers intended (i.e. large bone and soft tissue defects, obesity). Patients may also benefit from selective application of mix & match in hip revision, when the exchange of one component only is necessary and the invasiveness of surgery can be reduced. Currently, there are no formal guidelines for these situations. Therefore, within a recent EFORT initiative, evidence- and consensus-based recommendations have been developed for the safe application of off-label use and mix & match in revision hip and knee arthroplasty.

Hip Arthroplasty With the Use of a Reconstruction Cage and Porous Metal Augment to Treat Massive Acetabular Bone Loss: A Midterm Follow-Up

BACKGROUND

Acetabular reconstruction in the context of massive acetabular bone loss is challenging. In rare scenarios where the extent of bone loss precludes shell placement (cup-cage), reconstruction at our center consisted of a cage combined with highly porous metal augments. This study evaluates survivorship, complications, and functional outcomes using this technique.

METHODS

Patients with minimum 2-year follow-up were included. Baseline characteristics were collected. Preintervention and postintervention ambulatory scores were collected. Kaplan-Meier (KM) survival analysis for cage failure requiring revision surgery was conducted. Binomial regression analysis was performed to assess for correlation of aseptic cage failure with baseline characteristics. Preintervention and postintervention ambulatory aid requirements were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 41 patients were identified. Mean follow-up was 6.4 years (range 2.8-11.0). Four (9.8%) aseptic cage revisions were identified. Aseptic KM survival analysis was 87.4% (95% confidence interval 75.3-99.6) at 10 years. Aseptic KM survival was 45.0% versus 92.8% at 9 years (P = .14) for patients with vs without pelvic discontinuity. KM survival for all-cause failure was 61.6% (95% confidence interval 44.0-79.2) at 10 years. Binomial regression did not demonstrate correlation of cage failure with baseline characteristics. Wilcoxon signed-rank test demonstrated a significant reduction in ambulatory aide requirement after surgery (mean rank 11.47 vs 9.00, Z = -2.95, P = .003).

CONCLUSION

In scenarios of massive acetabular bone loss where a cup-cage is not a viable option, good survivorship free from aseptic cage failure can be expected at mid-term follow-up using an antiprotrusio cage combined with porous metal augments. Success requires extensive experience in revision surgery.

Influence of dual-mobility acetabular implants on revision and survivorship of cup and Kerboull-type reinforcement ring constructs in aseptic acetabular loosening

INTRODUCTION

Dual-mobility (DM) acetabular implants have been used in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) to prevent postoperative instability, with excellent mid-term survivorship. However, few comparative studies assessed the long-term outcomes of DM implants used in Kerboull-type reinforcement ring constructs for acetabular revision. The present study aimed to compare long-term survivorship, dislocation rates and clinical outcome between DM acetabular implants and conventional single-bearing (SB) implants when cemented in a reinforcement ring.

HYPOTHESIS

Dual-mobility implants are associated with equivalent survivorship and lower dislocation rates than SB implants.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A retrospective study included 60 revision THAs for aseptic loosening using a Kerboull-type reinforcement ring, and finally included 2 groups of 23 patients with either DM or SB cemented acetabular implants after matching for age, gender, BMI and preoperative Harris hip score. Mean follow-up was 10 years (range, 6-14 years). Acetabular implant survivorship, dislocation rate and radiographic failure incidence (>5mm migration, progressive radiolucency, graft non-integration, reinforcement ring breakage) were compared between the two groups. Clinical outcomes used the Harris hip score, the Postel-Merle d'Aubigné score and the Parker score.

RESULTS

Survivorship free of aseptic acetabular re-revision was 89% at 10 years, with no significant difference between DM and SB (91% and 86%, respectively; p=0.54). Single-bearing implants showed a hazard ratio for dislocation of 6.7 (95% CI, 1.5-29.6; p=0.01) compared to DM implants. There were no significant differences in radiologic failure (10-year survivorship 72% and 64%, respectively; p=0.88) or functional scores.

DISCUSSION

The present study confirmed the impact of dual-mobility implants in reducing long-term dislocation risk when used in Kerboull-type reinforcement ring constructs for acetabular aseptic revision, with no increased risk of re-revision compared to conventional single-bearing implants.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III, comparative retrospective study.

Pelvic discontinuity: a challenge to overcome

Pelvic discontinuity (PD) has been a considerable challenge for the hip revision arthroplasty surgeon. However, not all PDs are the same. Some occur during primary cup insertion, resembling a fresh periprosthetic fracture that separates the superior and inferior portions of the pelvis, while others are chronic as a result of gradual acetabular bone loss due to osteolysis and/or acetabular implant loosening.In the past, ORIF, various types of cages, bone grafts and bone cement were utilized with little success. Today, the biomechanics and biology of PD as well as new diagnostic tools and especially a variety of new implants and techniques are available to hip revision surgeons. Ultraporous cups and augments, cup-cage constructs and custom triflange components have revolutionized the treatment of PD when used in various combinations with ORIF and bone grafts. For chronic PD the cup-cage construct is the most popular method of reconstruction with good medium-term results.Dislocation continues to be the leading cause of failure in all situations, followed by infection. Ultimately, surgeons today have a big enough armamentarium to select the best treatment approach. Case individualization, personal experience and improvisation are the best assets to drive treatment decisions and strategies. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2021;6:459-471. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.210022.