The use of a non-biological, bridging, antiprotrusio cage in complex revision hip arthroplasty and periacetabular reconstructive oncologic surgery. Is still today a valid option?: A mid/long-term survival and complications' analysis

Management of metastatic bone disease of the pelvis: current concepts

PURPOSE

Metastatic disease of the pelvis is frequently associated with severe pain and impaired ambulatory function. Depending on the patient's characteristics, primary tumor, and metastatic pelvic disease, the treatment choice may be varied. This study aims to report on the current management options of metastatic pelvic disease.

METHODS

We comprehensively researched multiple databases and evaluated essential studies about current concepts of managing a metastatic bone disease of the pelvis, focusing on specific indications as well as on the result of treatment.

RESULTS

Pelvic metastases not in the periacetabular region can be managed with modification of weight-bearing, analgesics, bisphosphonates, chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy. Minimally invasive approaches include radiofrequency ablation, cryoablation, embolization, percutaneous osteoplasty, and percutaneous screw placement. Pathological or impending periacetabular fracture, excessive periacetabular bone defect, radioresistant tumor, and persistent debilitating pain despite non-surgical treatment and/or minimally invasive procedures can be managed with different surgical techniques. Overall, treatment can be divided into nonoperative, minimally invasive, and operative based on specific indications, the expectations of the patient and the lesion.

CONCLUSION

Different treatment modalities exist to manage metastatic pelvic bone disease. Decision-making for the most appropriate treatment should be made with a multidisciplinary approach based on a case-by-case basis.

Primary stability of multi-hole cups compared to plate osteosynthesis in osteoporotic anterior column and posterior hemi-transverse acetabular fractures—A biomechanical comparison

Introduction

Acetabular fractures pose high demands on the surgeon and in the case of osteosynthetic treatment, anatomical reconstruction has the highest priority to achieve a good outcome. However, especially in older patients with poor bone quality, even anatomical reconstruction is no guarantee for a good clinical outcome and may nevertheless end in early osteoarthritis. Primary arthroplasty therefore has an increasing importance in the treatment of these patients. The aim of this study was to biomechanically compare fracture gap displacement and failure load as an assessment measure of the primary stability of conventional plate osteosynthesis with the treatment using a sole multi-hole cup for acetabular fractures.

Methods

Six hemi-pelvises each with anterior column and posterior hemi-transverse (ACPHT) fracture were treated with either plate osteosynthesis or a multi-hole cup. The tests were carried out in a standardised test set-up with cyclic loading in various stages between 150 N and 2500 N. The fracture gap displacement was recorded with optical 3D measuring and the failure load was determined after the cyclic measurement.

Results

With increasing force, the fracture gap displacement increased in both procedures. In each group there was one treatment which failed at the cyclic loading test and a bone fragment was broken out. The primary stability in arthroplasty was comparable to that of the standard osteosynthesis.

Conclusions

The results found seem promising that the primary arthroplasty with a sole multi-hole cup and corresponding screw fixation achieves an initial stability comparable to osteosynthesis for typical ACPHT fractures. However, further clinical studies are needed to prove that the cups heal solidly into the bone.

Patient-reported outcome measures, complication rates, and re-revision rates are not associated with the indication for revision total hip arthroplasty : a prospective evaluation of 647 consecutive patients

AIMS

The aim of this study was to explore the relationship between reason for revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) and outcomes in terms of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

METHODS

We reviewed a prospective cohort of 647 patients undergoing full or partial rTHA at a single high-volume centre with a minimum of two years' follow-up. The reasons for revision were classified as: infection; aseptic loosening; dislocation; structural failure; and painful THA for other reasons. PROMs (modified Oxford Hip Score (mOHS), EuroQol five-dimension three-level health questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) score, and visual analogue scales for pain during rest and activity), complication rates, and failure rates were compared among the groups.

RESULTS

The indication for revision influenced PROMs improvement over time. This finding mainly reflected preoperative differences between the groups, but diminished between the first and second postoperative years. Preoperatively, patients revised due to infection and aseptic loosening had a lower mOHS than patients with other indications for revision. Pain scores at baseline were highest in patients being revised for dislocation. Infection and aseptic loosening groups showed marked changes over time in both mOHS and EQ-5D-3L. Overall complications and re-revision rates were 35.4% and 9.7% respectively, with no differences between the groups (p = 0.351 and p = 0.470, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Good outcomes were generally obtained regardless of the reason for revision, with patients having the poorest preoperative scores exhibiting the greatest improvement in PROMs. Furthermore, overall complication and reoperation rates were in line with previous reports and did not differ between different indications for rTHA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(7):859-866.

Acetabular Revision Arthroplasty Based on 3-Dimensional Reconstruction Technology Using Jumbo Cups

Background: This study was aimed at evaluating the changes in cup coverage (CC) and hip center of rotation (HCOR) in acetabular defects of various severities treated with acetabular revision using jumbo cups.

Methods: A total of 86 hips were included. The American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS) classification of these patients was as follows: 16 patients, AAOS I; 16 patients, AAOS II; and 16 patients, AAOS III. A three-dimensional (3D) implant simulation technique was used to visualize the placement of jumbo cups during revision arthroplasty. The acetabular anteversion, inclination, CC, and the HCOR were measured.

Results: The inclination and anteversion of simulated acetabular cups in AAOS I–III groups were consistent with the normal acetabular anatomy. Compared with the controls, in AAOS I–III groups, the HCOR was significantly increased and CC was significantly decreased. The HCOR elevation was significantly higher in AAOS III patients than in AAOS I (p = 0.001) and AAOS II patients (p < 0.001). The use of the jumbo cup technology for acetabular revision would decrease the CC in AAOS I–III patients to 86.47, 84.78, and 74.51%, respectively.

Conclusion: Our study demonstrated that in patients with acetabular defects, acetabular revision arthroplasty using jumbo cups will lead to decreased CC and HCOR upshift. Upon classifying these patients according to the AAOS classification, CC decreased with the severity of acetabular defects, and the elevation of the HCOR in AAOS III patients exceeded 10 mm and was significantly higher than in other patients.