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

A Registry Study On Acetabular Revisions Using Jumbo Cups: Do We Really Need A More Complex Revision Strategy?

BACKGROUND

The increasing global performance of total hip arthroplasty (THA) has led to a corresponding rise in revision surgeries, primarily due to cup implant failure, with aseptic loosening and periprosthetic infection being common causes. Various techniques and implants, including jumbo cups (JCs), are employed to manage residual bone loss post-cup removal, facilitating enhanced surface area for improved host bone contact and biological osteointegration. The purpose of the present study was to determine the outcomes of acetabular revision arthroplasty using JC implants over a 20-year follow-up period by reporting overall survival, complications leading to re-revision surgery, and surgical strategy in the case of re-revision.

METHODS

A cohort study based on a large regional registry was conducted, examining revision THA surgeries utilizing JCs between 2000 and 2020. The study included all the revision acetabular procedures performed with cementless JCs, identified with a diameter ≥ 62 mm in women or ≥ 66 mm in men. All iliac fixation cups were excluded. Data on demographics, revision surgery indications, components, fixation types, causes of failure, and reintervention strategies were collected and analyzed. A total of 541 JCs implanted from January 2000 to December 2020 were evaluated. The most common revision indications were "cup aseptic loosening" (54.5%) and "total aseptic loosening," which included both the cup and stem (32%).

RESULTS

Jumbo cup survival rates were 92.5% at 5 years, 85.8% at 10 years, and 81.5% at 15 years. Among the 70 failures, the main causes were "cup aseptic loosening" (40%), "total aseptic loosening" (17.1%), and "septic loosening" (12.8%). Revisions primarily involved acetabular cup revision surgery (54 cases), component explantation (11 cases), or insert/head revision (5 cases).

CONCLUSIONS

This registry-based study of JCs in revision THA demonstrates excellent 15-year survival rates and acceptable failure rates. It supports JCs as a viable option, offering relative surgical simplicity compared to alternatives like anti-protrusion cages, bone grafts, and augments.

Bridging Massive Acetabular Defects With the Triflange Cup: 10- to 28-Year Results

BACKGROUND

Massive acetabular bone loss, encountered complex primary or revision total hip arthroplasty, remains a reconstructive challenge. The custom triflange cup reliably achieves both early fixation and longer-term stability. This study presents the 10-year minimum three-surgeon follow-up of acetabular defects managed with a custom triflange component.

METHODS

All patients who underwent a custom triflange acetabular component implantation from January 1992 to December 2009 were identified. Demographics, implant data, outcomes, and reoperations were collected and analyzed. Bone defects in all cases were Paprosky type IIIA, IIIB, or IV. A total of 233 patients (241 hips) underwent implantation of a custom triflange during the study period. There were 81 patients (83 hips) who died prior to minimum follow-up and 84 patients (88 hips) had minimum follow-up of 10 years (mean 15.2; range, 10 to 28), or failure prior to 10 years.

RESULTS

Complications requiring additional surgery occurred in 43 hips (49%). There were 10 revisions for failure (11.4%); four were due to recurrent infection, three for aseptic loosening, and one for recurrent infection with all revised to a new triflange. There was one patient who was resected to a Girdlestone for infection and one patient was revised for infection to a bipolar hemiprosthesis due to a healed discontinuity.

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this study represents the largest cohort and longest follow-up in the current literature and demonstrates excellent survivorship and clinical results at an average of 15 years follow-up. The component was retained in 89% of cases.

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.