Use of Oversized Highly Porous Cups in Acetabular Revision

The Utilization of Metal Augments Allows Better Biomechanical Reconstruction of the Hip in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty With Severe Acetabular Defects: A Comparative Study

BACKGROUND

Reconstructing the normal hip biomechanics is important for a successful revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). Little is known about whether using metal augments in revision THA is biomechanically superior to traditional techniques.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted on 74 consecutive THAs revised using metal augments with a cementless hemispherical cup and 77 consecutive THAs revised using the jumbo cup, all with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Biomechanical parameters were measured before and immediately after the revision. Radiological and clinical outcomes at follow-ups were also evaluated.

RESULTS

The metal augment group had a reconstructed center of rotation (COR) that was 6.5 mm closer to the anatomic COR in height (P < .001), had 3.6 m smaller cup size (P < .001), and had 5.7 mm less head-cup difference (P < .001). Moreover, there was a reconstructed COR that was much closer to the anatomic COR (vertical distance: 1.8 vs 14.1 mm, P < .001; horizontal distance: -2.1 vs 7.9 mm, P = .013), had 4.1 mm greater femoral offset (P = .006), and had 8 mm less leg length discrepancy (P = .035) in the subgroup of Paprosky type III bone defects when compared to the jumbo cup group. All cup-augment constructs were radiologically stable with a higher mean postoperative Harris Hip Score (P = .012). One jumbo cup was radiologically unstable.

CONCLUSION

In revision THA, utilizing metal augments helps to restore the COR position more precisely, avoid using a larger cup, reduce head-cup difference, rebuild femoral offset, and decrease leg length discrepancy, particularly with Paprosky type III bone defects. Moreover, it provides satisfactory radiological and clinical outcomes in the short term.

Treatment of High-Grade Acetabular Defects: Do Porous Titanium Cups Provide Better Stability Than Traditional Titanium Cups When Combined With an Augment?

BACKGROUND

Revision total hip arthroplasty frequently faces challenges associated with deficient bone stock. Porous metal implants were developed to meet the challenge, but require rapid osseointegration for ultimate success. This study aims to assess relative motion as an indicator for primary stability and osseointegration of two different titanium cups each combined with a titanium augment.

METHODS

In 14 cadaver hemipelvises, 2 types of titanium acetabular cups, a traditional sintered-bead cup (POROCOAT Acetabular Cup [PAC]) and a newer porous-coated cup (GRIPTION Acetabular Cup [GAC]) each associated with a porous augment, were subjected to 3-dimensional varying loads, replicating 30% of loads experienced during normal gait. Relative motion was measured at the cup/bone, augment/bone, and cup/augment interfaces.

RESULTS

Only at the cup/bone interface was there a statistically significant difference in relative motion between the traditional PAC and the newer GAC, with PAC showing less relative motion (P = .0037). Bone mineral density (BMD) had a significant effect on relative motion (P = .0019) at the cup/bone interface of both cup types, with low BMD specimens showing more relative motion.

CONCLUSION

Both cup types combined with augments displayed minimal relative motion that was within the accepted range thought to allow osseointegration, although the traditional surface proved superior to the newer surface. This difference was more pronounced at low BMD, with the well-established PAC cup displaying less relative motion than the more porous GAC cup, consistent with better osseointegration than the more porous cup. This suggests that the more porous implant may be less advantageous than traditional PAC cups, particularly in cases with poorer bone stock.