[Comparison of different cup revision systems]

[Periprosthetic fractures of the acetabulum: revision endoprosthetics]

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic acetabular fractures are an increasing severe complication in revision arthroplasty. A differentiation is made between periprosthetic acetabular fractures (acute/traumatic fractures) and insufficiency fractures (chronic fractures).

OBJECTIVE

This article introduces a novel treatment algorithm that provides assistance in therapeutic decision making for implant selection and the anchoring philosophy based on diagnostic decision criteria and the relevant load-bearing osseous structures, taking the defect situation into account.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The article provides an overview of original and review articles.

RESULTS

The essential criteria for decisions in treatment planning are based on the stability of the primary cup, the load-bearing ability of the main anatomical structures and the resulting defect situation. For insufficiency fractures the reason for the revision and therefore the exclusion of periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) must additionally be considered. In the case of proven PJI a two-stage or multistage prosthesis exchange must be carried out. Based on the extent of apparent bony defects and pelvic discontinuity, the spectrum of treatment options ranges up to implantation of individual patient custom-made acetabular components.

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION

This overview introduces a new treatment algorithm that provides assistance in decision making for traumatic periprosthetic acetabular fractures and insufficiency fractures. It also provides decision criteria for selection of implants and the surgical approach. Due to the complexity of revision arthroplasty often requiring specialized expertise in trauma and orthopedic surgery and experienced revision surgeons, the operative treatment of periprosthetic acetabular fractures should only be carried out in specialized orthopedic and trauma surgery centers with appropriate experience.

[Treatment of acetabular bone defects in revision hip arthroplasty using the Revisio-System]

BACKGROUND

Many different systems for the management of primary and secondary acetabular defects are available, each with its inherent advantages and disadvantages. The Revisio-System is a press-fit oval mono-block implant that makes a defect-oriented reconstruction and restoration of the center of rotation possible.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In this study, we retrospectively reviewed the outcome of 92 consecutive patients treated with this oval press-fit cup due to periacetabular bone loss. The average follow-up was 58.2 months. Defects were classified according to D'Antonio. There were 39 type II, 38 Type III, and 15 type IV defects. After an average of 4.9 years, the implant survival rate was 94.6% with cup revision as the end point and 89.1% with revision for any reason as the end point. The Harris Hip Score increased from 41.1 preoperatively to 62.3 postoperatively. The mean level of pain measured with the Visual Analogue Scale (VSA) was reduced from 6.9 preoperatively to 3.8 postoperatively.

RESULTS

The Revisio-System represents a promising toolbox for defect-orientated reconstruction of acetabular bone loss in revision hip arthroplasty. Our results demonstrate that the implantation of the Revisio-System can result in a good mid-term clinical outcome.

Acetabular reconstruction with the Burch-Schneider antiprotrusio cage and bulk allografts: minimum 10-year follow-up results

Reconstruction of severe pelvic bone loss is a challenging problem in hip revision surgery. Between January 1992 and December 2000, 97 hips with periprosthetic osteolysis underwent acetabular revision using bulk allografts and the Burch-Schneider antiprotrusio cage (APC). Twenty-nine patients (32 implants) died for unrelated causes without additional surgery. Sixty-five hips were available for clinical and radiographic assessment at an average follow-up of 14.6 years (range, 10.0 to 18.9 years). There were 16 male and 49 female patients, aged from 29 to 83 (median, 60 years), with Paprosky IIIA (27 cases) and IIIB (38 cases) acetabular bone defects. Nine cages required rerevision because of infection (3), aseptic loosening (5), and flange breakage (1). The average Harris hip score improved from 33.1 points preoperatively to 75.6 points at follow-up (P < 0.001). Radiographically, graft incorporation and cage stability were detected in 48 and 52 hips, respectively. The cumulative survival rates at 18.9 years with removal for any reason or X-ray migration of the cage and aseptic or radiographic loosening as the end points were 80.0% and 84.6%, respectively. The use of the Burch-Schneider APC and massive allografts is an effective technique for the reconstructive treatment of extensive acetabular bone loss with long-lasting survival.

[Standardized reconstruction of acetabular bone defects using the cranial socket system]

OBJECTIVE

Management of primary or secondary acetabular bone loss (D'Antonio type I-IV ). Implantation and stable fixation using a cementless, cranially extended oval press-fit cup to restore painless joint function and loading capacity.

INDICATIONS

Septic or aseptic loosening of the acetabular component after total hip arthroplasty. Acetabular bone loss after tumor resection. Primary acetabular bone defects in developmental dysplasia of the hip.

CONTRAINDICATIONS

Persistent deep infection. Bone defects including the parts of the iliac bone adjoining the sacrum (fixation of the stem in the ilium is not possible any more).

SURGICAL TECHNIQUE

Complete exposure of the acetabular defect using a standard approach. Removal of the loose cup. Excision of soft and granulation tissue from the acetabular ground and the rim. Reaming of the acetabulum with sequentially larger hemispheric reamers until an adequate bony bed is created for the insertion of the cranial socket. Eccentric cranial sockets without a craniolateral flap are preferable for use in type I and II defects with teardrop lysis mostly involving the craniolateral acetabulum, if a trihedral press-fit fixation can be achieved. Supplementary screw fixation through the acetabular ground, is possible. If a type III defect is present, the authors recommend the use of cranial sockets with an anatomic flap in order to increase primary stability by supplementary screw fixation. This is especially recommended for the management of deficiencies in the medial or posterior wall. If there is pelvic discontinuity (type IV), adequate acetabular reconstruction with primary stability of the component can only be achieved by a supplementary intramedullary structured stem fixed in the dorsal part of the ilium.

POSTOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT

Partial loading of the operated limb with 10 kg for a period of 6-12 weeks. Then increased loading with 10 kg per week. Thrombosis prophylaxis until full weight bearing. Physiotherapy and gait training.

RESULTS

A total of 50 cup revisions using the ESKA cranial socket system were clinically and radiologically analyzed with an average follow-up of 65.7+/-28.5 months (26-123 months). Defects were classified according to D'Antonio. There were 21 type II, 23 type III, and six type IV defects. The Harris Hip Score increased from 40 preoperatively to 68.3 points postoperatively. Four patients had recurrent hip dislocation requiring replacement of the inlay. In four cases of aseptic loosening, the acetabular component had to be revised. With revision of the acetabular component as an endpoint, implant survival was 92% after an average of 5.4 years.