Use of morselized allografts for acetabular reconstruction during THA revision: French multicenter study of 508 cases with 8 years' average follow-up

Total Hip Arthroplasty in Protrusio Acetabuli: A Systematic Review

Protrusio acetabuli, or abnormal protrusion of the femoral head into the acetabulum, requires performance of a total hip arthroplasty (THA) for which various reconstruction techniques and outcomes have been described. The aim of this systematic review is to provide a comprehensive analysis of the current evidence, evaluate treatment efficacy, compare surgical techniques, and identify topics for future research along with improving evidence-based decision-making, improving patient outcomes in the management of this condition. A thorough systematic review of the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library databases, and Scopus library was conducted, and articles describing techniques of THA for treatment of protrusion acetabuli were extracted. The initial search generated 751 results. After exclusion, 18 articles were included. Of these, eight were prospective studies and 10 were retrospective. Surgery was performed on 783 hips with a mean age of 60 years; 80% of females who mostly had inflammatory arthritis were followed up for 8.86 years (range, 2-15.4 years). Good outcomes have been achieved with THA using uncemented cups with bone graft; however, no conclusion could be drawn with regard to the femoral side. It can be concluded that the concept of restoration of the anatomical hip center of rotation is paramount for good outcome and better survival of the implant is important when using uncemented cups with a bone graft. In addition, screw augmentation for fixation is not recommended unless absolutely necessary. The most common complications were aseptic loosening and heterotopic ossification. While the former required revision, conservative management was administered for the latter.

In vitro osteoblast activity is decreased by residues of chemicals used in the cleaning and viral inactivation process of bone allografts

Allograft bone tissue has a long history of use. There are two main ways of preserving allografts: by cold (freezing), or at room temperature after an additional cleaning treatment using chemicals. These chemicals are considered potentially harmful to humans. The aim of the study was (i) to assess the presence of chemical residues on processed bone allografts and (ii) to compare the in vitro biocompatibility of such allografts with that of frozen allografts. The presence of chemical residues on industrially chemically treated bone was assessed by high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) after extraction. Biocompatibility analysis was performed on primary osteoblast cultures from Wistar rats grown on bone disks, either frozen (F-bone group) or treated with supercritical carbon dioxide with no added chemical (scCO2-bone group) or industrially treated with chemicals (CT-bone group). Cell viability (XTT) was measured after one week of culture. Osteoblastic differentiation was assessed after 1, 7 and 14 days of culture by measuring alkaline phosphatase (ALP) activity directly on the bone discs and indirectly on the cell mat in the vicinity of the bone discs. Residues of all the chemicals used were found in the CT-bone group. There was no significant difference in cell viability between the three bone groups. Direct and indirect ALP activities were significantly lower (-40% to -80%) in the CT-bone group after 7 and 14 days of culture (p < 0.05). Residues of chemical substances used in the cleaning of bone allografts cause an in vitro decrease in their biocompatibility. Tissue cleaning processes must be developed that limit or replace these chemicals to favor biocompatibility.

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.

Survival Analysis of Allografting and Antiprotrusio Cage in Treating Massive Acetabular Bone Defects

BACKGROUND

Massive acetabular bone defects reconstructed with allografting and antiprotrusio cage in revision hip arthroplasty is less reported in the literature. We here report a series of 84 antiprotrusio cages and analyze the risk factors associated with failure.

METHODS

All instances of use of an antiprotrusio cage for massive acetabular defect (Paprosky type IIc, III, and pelvic discontinuity) between 2002 and 2017 in the authors' institute were reviewed after institutional review board's approval. Survival analyses based on clinical data, bone defect (Paprosky system), type of allograft, size of cage, fixation quality, and position of cage were performed. Failure was defined as cage loosening or breakage, poor hip function, or cage revision for any reason.

RESULTS

A total of 84 cages in 77 patients (mean age, 62.9 years), with a mean follow-up period of 6.2 years, had a survival rate of 82.1%. Failure was noted in 15 hips, including mechanical failure in 8 hips, recurrent dislocation in 1 hip, poor hip function in 1 hip, and periprosthetic joint infection in 5 hips. Pelvic discontinuity, reconstruction with morselized allograft alone, and fewer than 4 fixation points to the host bone were associated with higher failure rates (hazard ratios, 4.02, 3.42, and 9.9, respectively).

CONCLUSION

We found that an antiprotrusio cage combined with strut allografts, fixed securely to the host bone (>4 fixation points), are beneficial for the management of massive acetabular bone defects. However, pelvic discontinuity remains a challenge that warrants the further study of technical or prosthetic innovations, such as triflange implants, cup cage, and 3D-printed implants.

Stemmed acetabular cup as a salvage implant for revision total hip arthroplasty with Paprosky type IIIA and IIIB acetabular bone loss

INTRODUCTION

Certain cases of repeated acetabular loosening with severe bone loss are hardly amenable to reconstruction using a Kerboull-type plate with allograft. This limitation is more likely when the severe bone loss occurs in older adults with significant comorbidities that may require a faster procedure. In these indications, a stemmed acetabular cup may be an alternative, although the outcomes have not been well defined, especially for a version where the peg is coated with porous material and additional screws can be added. This led us to conduct a retrospective study to determine: (1) whether a stemmed cup anchored in the iliac isthmus is a viable alternative in these situations, (2) the complication rate and (3) the revision rate for any reason.

HYPOTHESIS

A stemmed cup anchored in the iliac isthmus is a viable alternative in cases of repeated revision with severe acetabular bone loss.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective single-center study. Sixteen Integra™ cups were implanted in 14 patients (mean age 72.8±10.4 years, minimum-maximum: 58-95) who had aseptic acetabular loosening combined with severe acetabular bone loss graded as Paprosky IIIA in 7 hips and IIIB in 9 hips. The patients had undergone a mean of 2.7±1.8 (minimum-maximum: 1-6) procedures (i.e. primary and/or revision arthroplasty) before this cup was implanted. The cup's survivorship at the time of review and the complication rate were determined.

RESULTS

At a mean follow-up of 48.8±23.4 months (minimum-maximum: 7-85), two patients had died and two were lost to follow-up. Six hips experienced one or more complications (37.5%): three infections (18.8%), two mechanical failures (12.5%) and one dislocation (6.7%). The cup had to be removed in three patients (18.8%). These complications required reoperation, thus the cumulative incidence of revision for any reason at 5 years was 31% (95% CI: 11-55%).

CONCLUSION

Despite the high complication and revision rates, we believe the stemmed acetabular cup is a viable alternative in salvage reconstruction procedures.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, Retrospective case study.