Cemented liner exchange with bone grafting halts the progression of periacetabular osteolysis

The Diagnosis and Treatment of Acetabular Bone Loss in Revision Hip Arthroplasty: An International Consensus Symposium

Despite growing evidence supporting the evaluation, classification, and treatment of acetabular bone loss in revision hip replacement, advancements have not been systematically incorporated into a single document, and therefore, a comprehensive review of the treatment of severe acetabular bone loss is needed. The Stavros Niarchos Foundation Complex Joint Reconstruction Center at Hospital for Special Surgery held an Acetabular Bone Loss Symposium on June 21, 2019, to answer the following questions: What are the trends, emerging technologies, and areas of future research related to the evaluation and management of acetabular bone loss in revision hip replacement? What constitutes the optimal workup and management strategies for acetabular bone loss? The 36 international experts convened were divided into groups, each assigned to discuss 1 of 4 topics: (1) preoperative planning and postoperative assessment; (2) implant selection, management of osteolysis, and management of massive bone loss; (3) the treatment challenges of pelvic discontinuity, periprosthetic joint infection, instability, and poor bone biology; and (4) the principles of reconstruction and classification of acetabular bone loss. Each group came to consensus, when possible, based on an extensive literature review. This document provides an overview of these 4 areas, the consensus each group arrived at, and directions for future research.

Polyethylene liner cementation into a well-fixed metal acetabular shell for the management of periacetabular osteolysis: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Although various papers have reported on the clinical performance of cup retention with cementation of a new liner and bone grafting in the management of well-fixed cups with polyethylene wear and periacetabular osteolysis after total hip arthroplasty (THA), no systematic review of this topic has been published to date.

METHODS

Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were searched for articles published from January 1999 to January 2019 using "osteolysis" AND "well-fixed", "osteolysis" AND "retro-acetabular", "bone graft" AND ("retention" OR "retained" OR "stable") AND "cup", and "cemented liner" AND "well-fixed".

RESULTS

Nine articles were selected for review (186 cases, 76.1 months mean follow-up). The overall revision rate was 11.3% (21 hips) most commonly due to aseptic loosening (9/186 hips), dislocation (8/186 hips), and liner wear progression (2/186 cases). The reported square size of osteolytic lesions ranged from a mean of 465.84 mm² to a max of 4,770 mm². Almost all reported lesions treated with bone grafts resolved or did not progress 97% (72/74). All studies indicated improved pain and functional scores at follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Cementation of a new liner with periacetabular bone grafting provides an alternative option to isolated liner exchange and cup revision for the management of periacetabular osteolysis in well-fixed cups with a disrupted locking mechanism or unavailable exchange liner. Further higher quality studies are required in order to examine if the use of highly cross-linked polyethylene, highly porous-coated cups, hydroxyapatite-coated cups, and small-diameter cups influence the clinical outcome of liner cementation in well-fixed cups with periacetabular osteolysis.

Isolated Acetabular Liner Exchange for Polyethylene Wear and Osteolysis with Well-Fixed Metal Shell

Background

The isolated liner and head exchange procedure has been an established treatment method for polyethylene wear and osteolysis when the acetabular component remains well fixed. In this study, the mid-term results of this procedure were evaluated retrospectively.

Methods

Among the consecutive patients operated on from September 1995, two patients (three hips) were excluded because of inadequate follow-up, and the results of remaining 34 patients (34 hips) were evaluated. There were 20 men and 14 women with a mean age of 49 years. A conventional polyethylene liner was used in 26 cases and a highly cross-linked polyethylene liner was used in eight cases. In three cases, the liner was cemented in a metal shell because a compatible liner could not be used.

Results

After a follow-up of 5 to 20.2 years, re-revision surgery was necessary in 10 cases (29.4%): in eight for wear and osteolysis at 55 to 101 months after liner exchange and in two for acetabular loosening at 1 and 1.5 years after liner exchange. Re-revision surgery included all component revision (four cases), cup revision (four cases), and liner exchange (two cases). In all re-revision cases, a conventional polyethylene liner was used initially. There was no failure in the cases in which a highly cross-linked polyethylene liner was used.

Conclusions

The results of this study suggest that isolated acetabular liner exchange is a reasonable option for wear and osteolysis when the metal shell is well fixed. More promising long-term results are expected with the use of highly cross-linked polyethylene liners.

Evaluation and Treatment of Patients With Acetabular Osteolysis After Total Hip Arthroplasty

As the demand for total hip arthroplasty (THA) continues to increase, the burden of revision THA is also expected to increase. Although the quality of polyethylene has improved markedly, osteolysis continues to be a risk for older designs and younger, active patients. Although progressive but typically asymptomatic in early stages, osteolysis can result in component failure and complicate revision surgery. Serial radiographs are paramount for monitoring progression. Although select cases may be treated with observation, surgery should be considered based on age, activity level, and projected life span. Well-fixed, noncemented modular acetabular components may be treated with curettage and bone grafting, as well as having to bear liner exchange with retention of the acetabular shell. However, in the setting of osteolysis, it is controversial whether bone grafting and component retention is superior to cup revision. This review explores the pathophysiology of osteolysis after THA and provides a comprehensive analysis of the evaluation and treatment of patients with osteolysis.

[A retrospective study on the application of cemented polyethylene liner technique in hip revision]

Objective

To evaluate the effectiveness of cemented polyethylene liner technique in hip revision.

Methods

Based on inclusion criteria, the clinical data of 26 patients who were undergone hip revision between January 2011 and December 2013, were retrospectively reviewed. Among them, 14 cases were treated with isolated liner exchange (group A) and 12 cases were treated with cemented polyethylene liner technique (group B). There was no significant difference in gender, age, the time from primary total hip arthroplasty to revision, and the preoperative Harris score between 2 groups ( P>0.05). The post-operative Harris score and complications were compared between 2 groups, and X-ray findings of the hip joint were recorded to review the position of hip components.

Results

All patients were followed up 4.4-6.4 years (mean, 5.4 years). Except for two femoral fractures during the revision (1 in each group), there was no other complication in 2 groups. The hip pain relieved and the lame gait corrected in 2 groups. The hip's function of 2 groups improved gradually after operation, with a better Harris score at 3 months and the best at the last follow-up, compared with preoperative scores ( P<0.05). There was no significant difference in Harris score at difference time points after operation between 2 group ( P>0.05). X-ray films showed no dislocation, aseptic loosening, and other interface related complication.

Conclusion

For the cases without the chance to do change liner, cemented polyethylene liner technique has a good effectiveness. But restrict patient selection should be considered before hip revision.