Do jumbo cups cause hip center elevation in revision THA? A radiographic evaluation

Evaluation and Management of Acetabular Bone Loss in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A 10-year Update

Acetabular bone loss continues to be one of the most complex and challenging scenarios facing the orthopaedic surgeon. Preoperative planning and classification systems essentially have remained the same, with the Paprosky classification still being the most commonly used. Careful radiological assessment with well-defined criteria can accurately diagnose acetabular bone loss patterns with an associated chronic pelvic discontinuity before surgery. The use of cemented reconstruction techniques has declined, and contemporary practice trends have involved the increasing use of highly porous hemispherical shells in conjunction with modular porous metal augments, which can successfully treat most acetabular revisions. Noncemented treatment options for the management of acetabular bone loss during revision include conventional porous/modular highly porous hemispherical implants, nonmodular highly porous implants with cementable acetabular liners, cup-cage reconstruction, oblong cups, and triflange reconstruction. These options can be combined with modular porous metal augments, structural allografts, impaction grafting, or reconstruction cages. Acetabular distraction is a newer technique for chronic pelvic discontinuity, which is used in conjunction with off-the-shelf revision acetabular shells and modular porous metal augments. This review is an update over the past decade, highlighting studies with mid to long-term follow-up, and presents the advantages, disadvantages, and principles associated with each of the most commonly used reconstructive techniques.

How modular porous metal augments have changed the management of acetabular bone loss at primary or revision total hip arthroplasty

The advent of modular porous metal augments has ushered in a new form of treatment for acetabular bone loss. The function of an augment can be seen as reducing the size of a defect or reconstituting the anterosuperior/posteroinferior columns and/or allowing supplementary fixation. Depending on the function of the augment, the surgeon can decide on the sequence of introduction of the hemispherical shell, before or after the augment. Augments should always, however, be used with cement to form a unit with the acetabular component. Given their versatility, augments also allow the use of a hemispherical shell in a position that restores the centre of rotation and biomechanics of the hip. Progressive shedding or the appearance of metal debris is a particular finding with augments and, with other radiological signs of failure, should be recognized on serial radiographs. Mid- to long-term outcomes in studies reporting the use of augments with hemispherical shells in revision total hip arthroplasty have shown rates of survival of > 90%. However, a higher risk of failure has been reported when augments have been used for patients with chronic pelvic discontinuity.

Management of acetabular bone loss in revision total hip replacement: a narrative literature review

Background and Objective

Due to growing numbers of primary total hip replacement (THR), the revision THR burden is also increasing. Common indications for revision are osteolysis, infection, instability, and mechanical failure of implants, which can cause acetabular bone loss. Massive acetabular bone defects and pelvic discontinuity are extremely challenging problems. Many techniques have been utilized to address bone loss while maintaining a stable revision THR. Structural allografts, cemented prosthesis, reconstruction cages, and custom triflanged implants have all been used successfully albeit with relatively high complications rates. We have tried to highlight emerging trends to utilize Custom Made Monoflange or Triflange Acetabular Components to reconstruct massive acetabular defects with favourable midterm implant survival, better functional outcomes, relatively lesser complications, and almost similar cost of prosthesis as compared to conventional reconstruction techniques. However, long-term data and study is still recommended to draw a definitive conclusion.

Methods

In this narrative review article, we searched PubMed and Cochrane for studies on managing acetabular bone loss in revision THR with a focus on recent literature for mid to long-term outcomes and compared results from various studies on different reconstruction methods.

Key Content and Findings

Hemispherical cementless acetabular prosthesis with supplemental screws are commonly utilized to manage mild to moderate acetabular bone loss. Recent trends have shown much interest and paradigm shift in patient specific custom triflange acetabular components (CTAC) for reconstructing massive acetabular defects and pelvic discontinuity. Studies have reported high patient satisfaction, improved patient reported daily functioning, high mid-term implant survival, similar complications, and encouraging all cause re-revision rate. However, more prospective and quality studies with larger sample sizes are needed to validate the superiority of CTACs over conventional acetabular implants.

Conclusions

There is no consensus regarding the best option for reconstructing massive acetabular defects. Thorough preoperative workup and planning is an absolute requirement for successful revision THR. While most of the moderate acetabular bone loss can be managed with cementless hemispherical acetabular shells with excellent long-term outcomes, reconstructing massive acetabular bone defects in revision THR remains a challenge. Depending on the size and location of the defect, various constucts have demonstrated long-term success as discussed in this review, but complications are not negligible. CTACs provide a treatment for massive bone loss that may be otherwise difficult to achieve anatomic stability with other constructs. Although long-term data is sparse, the cost and complication rate is comparable to other reconstruction methods.

THE CEMENTED DOUBLE MOBILITY CUP IN HIP REVISION: DIFFERENT POSSIBILITIES OF USE

Introduction

The aim of our work is to review those patients who underwent prosthetic hip revision surgery in our hospital considered to be patients at high risk of dislocation or recurrent dislocation, and who underwent a double mobility cemented cup (CMD). Analyzing the different ways to place these cups and the clinical results and reluxations.

Material and methods

The 69 cases comprised 34 men and 35 women with a mean age of 77,39 years. The mean follow-up was 4.7536 years. The type of intervention performed varied according to the cause of the intervention, the acetabular bone stock and the state of the primary cup. In the cases in which there was a good fixation of the primary metalback, we opted to carry out a cementation of the cemented DMC into the existing well-fixed metal acetabular shell, this occurred in 23 cases. In the cases where there was loosening of the primary cup but there was a good bone stock, a CMD was cemented into the bone (21 cases). In the cases where there was a Paprosky type III we cemented a DMC to a Bursch-Schneider reinforcement ring together with the placement of a cancellous bone graft (25 cases).

Results

The clinical evaluation at the end of the follow-up, according to the MD Scale, showed the mean value was 16.454 (SD 0.79472), with a survival at the end of the follow-up of 100% of the placed DMC.

Conclusion

The use of cemented DMC is a good solution in the replacement of THA, especially in cases of reluxation or risk of dislocation due to personal or technical predisposing factors. The use of these DMC cemented can be directly to the bone, into the existing well-fixed metal Shell, or cemented to a reinforcing ring, depending on the acetabular defect. Evidence Level III; Comparative Case Series .

Trabecular titanium cups in acetabular revision arthroplasty: analysis of 10-year survivorship, restoration of center of rotation and osteointegration

AIMS

In case of severe bone loss, acetabular revision can be challenged using extra porous pure trabecular titanium (TT) revision cups designed to ensure enhanced iliac and ischiatic purchase. Aim of the study is to report on the clinical and radiological results of a TT acetabular component, evaluating functional outcome, restoration of the hip center of rotation and osteointegration.

METHODS

85 patients, who underwent acetabular revision with a TT revision cup system between October 2009 and December 2018, were included in a retrospective study. Clinical outcome were assessed with Harris Hip Score (HHS). The hip rotation center was measured using the Pierchon method on the AP pelvis film. Loosening of the cup was determined according to the Kosashvili modification of Gill's criteria. Kaplan- Meier survivorship curve was performed. Results The mean follow-up was 6.12 years. The average HHS improved from 54.7 points to 89.7 points (p < 0.05). Two acetabular components (2.3%) were re-revised after a mean of 5.6 years, for aseptic loosening and for infection, with a progressive radiolucency and a > 5 mm vertical migration, respectively. The radiographic evaluation of the position of the hip rotation center revealed a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) between the pre- and post-operative values. The hip rotation center was correctly restored within 5% of the reference Pierchon values in a percentage of 85.4% relative to horizontal parameters and within 8% in a percentage of 66.7% relative to vertical parameters. 5-year and 10-year survivorships were, respectively, 100% and 88%.

CONCLUSIONS

In case of severe bone loss, TT revision cup system allows for good restoration of center of rotation and osteointegration showing good 10-year survival rate.

Clinical and radiological outcomes of jumbo cup in revision total hip arthroplasty: A systematic review

Introduction

Many studies have reported the clinical outcomes of a jumbo cup in revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) with acetabular bone defect. We conducted a systematic review to access the survivorship and clinical and radiological outcomes of a jumbo cup in rTHA.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A comprehensive literature search from PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was performed with the keywords (“revision” OR “revision surgery” OR “revision arthroplasty”) AND (“total hip arthroplasty” OR “total hip replacement” OR “THA” OR “THR”) AND (“jumbo cup” OR “jumbo component” OR “extra-large cup” OR “extra-large component”). Studies reporting the clinical or radiological outcomes were included. The basic information and radiological and clinical results of these studies were extracted and summarized for analysis.

Results

A total of 19 articles were included in the systematic review. The analysis of clinical results included 953 hips in 14 studies. The re-revision-free survivorship of the jumbo cup was 95.0% at a mean follow-up of 9.3 years. Dislocation, aseptic loosening, and periprosthetic joint infection were the top three complications with an incidence of 5.9%, 3.0%, and 2.1%, respectively. The postrevision hip center was relatively elevated 10.3 mm on average; the mean postoperative leg-length discrepancy was 5.4 mm.

Conclusion

A jumbo cup is a favorable option for acetabular bone defect reconstruction in rTHA with satisfying survivorship and acceptable complication rates.

The optimal screw-hole positions of the eccentric revision cup based on a morphological study

Background

Bridging bone defects in revision total hip arthroplasty is a challenge to orthopedic surgeons. The eccentric revision cup is a progression of jumbo cup. Our aim is to confirm the optimal screw-hole positions of the eccentric revision cup by morphological measurements of three-dimensional pelvic reconstruction.

Methods

Eighty CT images were converted to virtual three-dimensional bones. After simulating the surgery procedure, all available screw holes were inserted with the screws in virtual. By measuring the length of the screw in the pelvic bone, we determined the rich bone stock area. Then the screw holes were designed according to the characteristics of bone stock distribution. The peripheral screw-hole cluster and inner screw-hole cluster were studied respectively.

Results

For peripheral screw-hole cluster, five screw holes were evenly distributed between point A and point B in the thicker rim. For inner screw-hole cluster, screw hole 1 and screw hole 2 are the recommended inner screw holes.

Conclusion

The eccentric revision cup has inherited the strengths of jumbo cup besides several unique advantages, including using the peripheral screws enhancing primary stability; decreasing the shift of hip rotation center and restoring biomechanical function; reducing the risk of dislocation because of the smaller head-cup differences; increasing the contact area between the outer cup and the host bone while maintaining a normal inclination of the inner cup. In this study, we confirmed the optimal screw-hole positions of the eccentric revision cup by surgical simulation and morphological measurement. However, biomechanical tests are still being further explored.

Mid-term results in revision hip arthroplasty with impaction bone grafted cup reconstruction for acetabular defects

Acetabular defects are a challenging condition for surgeons in revision THA. A crucial aim is an anatomical restoration of the centre of rotation (COR) through grafts. The aim of this study was to determine the cup survival after biological restoration of acetabular defects in THA and the effect of Paprosky classification, age, BMI, and number of previous operations on cup survival. Retrospectively patients with a cup exchange and an impaction of cortico-cancellous or bulk grafts between 2009 and 2012 were included with a follow up with a minimum of 5 year. Implant failure was defined as radiographic loosening or explantation of the cup. The acetabular defect situation was classified to Paprosky. 82 patients (58 female 70.7%) were included. 26 patients were not available to contact. 56 patients (40 female 71.4%) remained for survival analysis with mean age of 75.6 ± 8 years. Survival of the cup after 5 years was 90% and after 7.8 years 88%. There was no difference in survival concerning defect classification, type of implant or graft, age, BMI, and number of previous operations. Patients on the follow up reached an HHS of 67.4 ± 19, a WOMAC Score of 33.4 ± 25.4 points and an unsatisfactory result in the SF-36. Impaction bone grafting of acetabular defects is a good option with satisfactory biomechanical results and survival for small defects. Predictive factors for cup survival could not be clarified in our study. So, the correct indication, knowing the limits of the methods and the correct choice of implant allow a defect-oriented approach and are decisive for the success of the operation.

Three-dimensional-printed titanium implants for severe acetabular bone defects in revision hip arthroplasty: short- and mid-term results

PURPOSE

Severe acetabular bone defect is challenging in revision hip arthroplasty. In the present study, we aimed to present new treatment options with the 3D printing technique and analyze the clinical and radiographic outcomes of 3D-printed titanium implants for the treatment of severe acetabular bone defects in revision hip arthroplasty.

METHODS

A total of 35 patients with Paprosky type 3 bone defect and pelvic discontinuity (PD), who underwent hip revisions using 3D-printed titanium implants between 2016 and 2019 at our institution, were retrospectively reviewed. Patient-specific 3D-printed titanium augments and shells (strategy A) were used in 22 type 3A and two type 3B patients. Custom 3D-printed flanged components (strategy B) were used in 11 type 3B patients, including five PD. The clinical outcomes were evaluated with the Harris hip score (HHS). In addition, radiographic results were analyzed by the hip centre of rotation (V-COR and H-COR), implant failure, and survivorship.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up was 41.5 months (range, 16-62). The HHS was improved from 47.8 ± 8.2 pre-operatively to 78.1 ± 10.1 at one year follow-up and 86.4 ± 5.1 at the last follow-up (p < 0.01). Post-operative V-COR and H-COR of the operated side were 20.8 ± 2.0 mm and 30.2 ± 1.6 mm compared with 51.4 ± 4.1 mm and 33.9 ± 9.0 mm pre-operatively (p < 0.01). The complications included one dislocation and one partial palsy of the sciatic nerve. At the latest follow-up, no radiological component loosening or screw breakage was present.

CONCLUSIONS

3D-printed titanium implants showed satisfactory short- and mid-term clinical and radiographic outcomes. It was an effective therapeutic regimen with a low rate of complications, providing a patient-specific and reliable strategy for the severe acetabular bone defect in revision hip arthroplasty.

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.

The Diagnosis and Treatment of Acetabular Bone Loss in Revision Hip Arthroplasty: An International Consensus Symposium

Despite growing evidence supporting the evaluation, classification, and treatment of acetabular bone loss in revision hip replacement, advancements have not been systematically incorporated into a single document, and therefore, a comprehensive review of the treatment of severe acetabular bone loss is needed. The Stavros Niarchos Foundation Complex Joint Reconstruction Center at Hospital for Special Surgery held an Acetabular Bone Loss Symposium on June 21, 2019, to answer the following questions: What are the trends, emerging technologies, and areas of future research related to the evaluation and management of acetabular bone loss in revision hip replacement? What constitutes the optimal workup and management strategies for acetabular bone loss? The 36 international experts convened were divided into groups, each assigned to discuss 1 of 4 topics: (1) preoperative planning and postoperative assessment; (2) implant selection, management of osteolysis, and management of massive bone loss; (3) the treatment challenges of pelvic discontinuity, periprosthetic joint infection, instability, and poor bone biology; and (4) the principles of reconstruction and classification of acetabular bone loss. Each group came to consensus, when possible, based on an extensive literature review. This document provides an overview of these 4 areas, the consensus each group arrived at, and directions for future research.

Effectiveness of an accelerometer-based portable navigation for intraoperative adjustment of leg length discrepancy in total hip arthroplasty in the supine position

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to examine the accuracy of the HipAlign® accelerometer-based portable navigation system by measuring the intraoperative leg length change of patients who underwent total hip arthroplasty (THA) and comparing the measured leg length discrepancy (LLD) determined by the navigation system and a freehand technique.

METHODS

A total of 61 patients who underwent THA using the anterolateral approach in the supine position were included in this study and divided into two groups: those who underwent THA with navigation (Group N; N = 31) and with the freehand technique (Group F; N = 30). Statistical analyses were performed to compare the intraoperative leg length change, pre- and post-LLD, absolute values of post-LLD, and the number of patients with the postoperative LLD within 10 mm and 5 mm between the two groups. Additionally, we examined the correlation between the leg length change obtained through intraoperative navigation and measured from the radiographs. Moreover, to evaluate the navigation accuracy, we examined the correlation between the absolute error of leg length change and cup orientation.

RESULTS

The postoperative LLD was significantly lower and the number of patients with the postoperative LLD within 5 mm was significantly higher in Group N, compared with Group F. Additionally, the amount of leg length change measured intraoperatively by the navigation system was strongly correlated with the values obtained by the postoperative radiographic measurement with a small absolute error and minimal wasted time. Moreover, a significant positive correlation was found between the absolute error of the leg length change and that of the cup inclination.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrates that the accelerometer-based portable navigation system is useful for the intraoperative adjustment of leg length discrepancy during THA for patients in the supine position, as it provides good accuracy and minimizes required time for use.

Jumbo cup in hip joint renovation may cause the center of rotation to increase

BACKGROUND

Utilizing the large jumbo cup in revision total hip arthroplasty is an effective approach to cure many lacunar and segmental peripheral bone defects. However, with the use of the jumbo cup, the center of the hip joint may become elevated relative to the primary acetabulum, and the diameter of the large cup is greater.

AIM

To study the height and the significance of the elevation of the hip joint center.

METHODS

Eighty-eight patients matched the criteria for this condition and were included in the study. The center height of the hip joint was measured relative to the opposite normal hip joint. The diameter of the jumbo cup was measured and checked according to operation notes, and the diameter of the jumbo cup was measured with a prosthesis label. Then, the horizontal and vertical centers of rotation were measured on the surgical side and opposite side. The average center height of the hip joint on the renovated side and the opposite side and the position of the hip cup relative to the teardrop were compared using a paired t-test.

RESULTS

Radiometric analysis showed that the average hip joint center was elevated by 7.6 mm. The rotational center height delta of the renovated hip was 7.6 ± 5.6 mm, and there was an obvious difference between the two groups (P = 0.00). The difference in horizontal distance was 0.5 ± 5.1 mm (-11.5 -14.0 mm), and there was no obvious difference between the two groups (P = 0.38). According to the foreign standard, the rotational center height delta of the renovated hip was 7.5 ± 6.2 mm, and there was a significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.00). There was no obvious difference between the domestic and foreign standards (P > 0.05) between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

The application of the jumbo cup elevates the rotational center of the hip joint, but it is feasible and effective to use the jumbo cup.

Cup-on-cup technique: a reliable management solution for severe acetabular bone loss in revision total hip replacement

BACKGROUND

The management of acetabular bone loss is a challenging problem in revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA). The goals of treatment are a stable acetabular fixation, implant stability, and restoration of hip centre of rotation.This study aims to report clinical, radiological outcomes and complications at short-term to mid-term follow-up of the cup-on-cup technique in the management of severe acetabular bone loss in rTHA.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the records of patient receiving rTHA performed with double porous tantalum cup technique in a single Joint Replacement Unit from 2014 to 2017. Objective and subjective clinical scores (Harris Hip Score, Oxford Hip Score, and visual analogue scale), radiological parameters (centre of rotation, leg-length discrepancy, heterotopic ossification, osseointegration, loosening and radiolucencies) and complications were recorded. We analysed the implant survival rate and periprosthetic joint infection rate.

RESULTS

We included 9 patients (9 hips) with a mean follow-up of 35.3 ± 10.8 months. Functional scores showed a statistically significant improvement at the final follow-up (p < 0.01). All patients rated their surgery as satisfactory. The cup-on-cup construct demonstrated radiological osseointegration with the centre of rotation restoration and leg length discrepancy improvement. In 1 patient, periprosthetic joint infection was diagnosed and treated with suppressive antibiotic therapy. No patients underwent acetabular components revision surgery for any reason.

CONCLUSIONS

Cup-on-cup technique is a valid and safe solution for reconstruction of selected Paprosky type IIIA and IIIB bone defects with satisfactory clinical and radiographic results at short-term and mid-term follow-up.

Mid-Term Follow-Up of Acetabular Revision Arthroplasty Using Jumbo Cups

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the mid-term clinical and radiographic results of revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) using jumbo cups in Chinese patients.

METHODS

We retrospectively studied 61 patients (63 hips; 29 men [30 hips], 32 women [33 hips]) who underwent acetabular revision with jumbo cups between January 2001 and April 2016 at our institution. The mean age at the index operation was 59.4 ± 11.4 years. The mean body mass index of the patients was 24.9 ± 3.8 kg/m² . Clinical evaluation was determined using the Harris hip score preoperatively and at follow up. Major complications (including instability, sepsis, and revision of the femoral or acetabular component) were recorded. Radiographic measurements included inclination and anteversion angles of the acetabular components, and the vertical and horizontal distances of the centers of rotation (V-COR and H-COR, respectively). In the 42 patients with normal contralateral hip joints, the postoperative V-COR and H-COR were compared between right and left sides. Their improvement in leg-length discrepancy (LLD) after revision THA was also evaluated. Cup survival was evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier analysis. Clinical and radiographic outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

Mean follow up was 5.7 years (2-16 years). At the latest follow-up, the average Harris hip score (preoperative vs postoperative values) had improved from 46 to 83 (P < 0.001). No acetabular component was radiographically defined as loosened. Four hips (6.3%) had major complications: one hip was revised because of periprosthetic infection (at 3 months); one underwent femoral open reduction and internal fixation (with implant retention) because of a periprosthetic femoral fracture (at 13 months); one operated hip developed a deep infection (at 2.5 years), which was treated with antibiotics; one hip experienced recurrent dislocation (at 4.5 years). The average cup inclination angle was 40.8° ± 6.8° and the average anteversion angle was 14.9° ± 6.6°. Average V-COR decreased from 29.7 ± 10.4 mm to 22.3 ± 7.6 mm (P < 0.001). The average postoperative H-COR was 29.5 ± 3.7 mm compared with 30.8 ± 6.6 mm preoperatively (P = 0.145). Among the 42 patients with normal contralateral hips, the average postoperative V-COR were 22.2 ± 8.3 mm (operated side) and 14.0 ± 3.7 mm (contralateral side) (P < 0.001). LLD improved from -16.8 ± 17.1 mm to -5.6 ± 11.8 mm (P < 0.001). When failure was defined as any reoperation involving the hip, the mean 16-year hip survival was 96.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 87.9%-99.2%). When defined as any hip reoperation or major complication, it was 92.7% (95%CI 81.2%-97.2%).

CONCLUSION

Use of jumbo cups for revision THA resulted in excellent mid-term cup survival and helped restore the COR.

Use of an offset head center acetabular shell in difficult primary total hip arthroplasties

Several conditions may predispose patients to development of antero-lateral acetabular bone deficiency, including developmental dysplasia of the hip, osteonecrosis, or septic arthritis, among others. This may compromise the ability to gain acetabular component stability and impair reliable fixation. Large acetabular shells have often been used to achieve adequate fixation in scenarios of severe bone loss, however, these techniques have been shown to elevate the center of rotation (COR) of the hip and alter hip biomechanics. Recently, a new acetabular shell was developed with a goal of maintaining the native hip COR while achieving good fixation with standard instrumentation and technique. Previous radiographic studies have demonstrated the efficacy of this shell in lowering hip COR. In this case series, we demonstrate the use of this shell in patients with difficult hip pathologies. We have demonstrated how this offset COR acetabular shell may help bring down the COR of the hip in these quite challenging cases utilizing conventional techniques.

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.

3D surgical printing for preoperative planning of trabecular augments in acetabular fracture sequel

We describe the methodical and possibilities of 3D surgical printing in preoperative planning for a total hip arthroplasty in acetabular deformity after acetabular fractures, showing a case of a 43-year-old with posttraumatic arthritis after both column fracture of the left acetabulum that was treated non operatively, supporting the do it yourself mode.

Novel Acetabular Cup for Revision THA Improves Hip Center of Rotation: A Radiographic Evaluation

BACKGROUND

Bone loss in patients undergoing revision THA poses a considerable challenge for orthopaedic surgeons. Often, to achieve better fixation in remaining bone, larger diameter acetabular components and reaming superiorly may be necessary. However, this is likely to raise the hip center of rotation, which may lead to altered biomechanics, specifically, insufficiency of the abductor muscles, altered gait, and increased risk of dislocation from impingement. More recently, a newer acetabular shell has been designed to more closely replicate the native hip center of rotation in these circumstances while maintaining adequate fixation.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

The purpose of this study was to compare the radiographic parameters of this newer design with conventional hemispheric cups in revision THA. Specifically, we assessed the differences in (1) vertical center of rotation (COR) displacement and (2) horizontal COR displacement.

METHODS

Between January 2016 and April 2016, five reconstructive surgeons at five institutions utilized a newer highly porous acetabular shell designed with peripheral screw holes and vertically eccentric COR to allow for restoration of center of hip rotation in revision THA. We included all patients who received this device. During this time, the general indications at these sites for using the new device included Paprosky Stage IIA, IIB, IIC, or IIIA acetabular defects. This yielded 29 patients who were subsequently matched (one to two) by cup size and sex to a cohort who underwent revision THA with conventional hemispheric cups between January 2015 and May 2016. To determine hip COR, radiographic measurements were performed. A circle contiguous to the acetabulum was drawn and the center was determined as the hip COR. All measurements were made from the interteardrop line for both the revised and native hips. A line through the teardrops was used for all horizontal measurements. Center position adjustments were made based on the manufacturer-specified values. Comparisons were performed using chi-square tests for categorical and t-tests for continuous variables. There was no difference in the severity of bone loss before the revision in the groups, as evidenced by Paprosky staging of preoperative radiographs.

RESULTS

The mean vertical COR displacement was smaller in patients who had the novel cup (3.5 mm; range, -12 to 15 mm; mean difference, -7.3 mm; 95% confidence interval [CI], -13.2 to -1.5) as compared with those who had the conventional cup (10.5 mm; range, -4 to 50 mm; mean difference, 7.3 mm; 95% CI, -12.5 to -2.2; p = 0.003). There was no difference in mean horizontal displacement between the two groups (-0.06 ± 6.1 versus 1.7 ± 7.1; mean difference, -1.8; p = 0.903).

CONCLUSIONS

Although hip COR was improved based on radiographic measurements with the use of this novel acetabular design, and although this may improve hip biomechanics, more studies are required before its widespread adoption for revision cases of this nature can be recommended. Both implant costs and the risks associated with using a new design in practice will have to be justified by studies that evaluate fixation, clinical function and implant survival, and patient-reported outcome scores, all of which were beyond the scope of this preliminary report.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

Comparative Study of Peripheral Rim Fixation Using Jumbo Cup in Revisional Hip Arthroplasty

Purpose

It is challenging procedure to revise acetabular component in acetabulum with severe bone defect or deformity. The jumbo cup is good option for revisional arthroplasty in large bone defect. The purpose of this study is to compare the prognosis of revisional total hip arthroplasty using jumbo cup with peripheral rim fixation and no rim fixation.

Materials and Methods

We included the patients who had performed acetabular revisional total hip arthroplasty from January 2002 to March 2015 in our institute. Total of 51 hips (51 patients) were included. The mean follow up period was 51 months (range, 12 to 154 months) and mean age was 60.7 years (range, 30 to 81 years). We divided into two groups (peripheral rim fixation group and no rim fixation group) by anteroposterior and lateral plain radiograph. We compared survival rate, hip center change and clinical outcomes between two groups.

Results

There were 37 patients in peripheral rim fixation group and 14 patients in no rim fixation group. There was one patient who had aseptic loosening necessary to re-revision in rim fixation group and 3 patients in no rim fixation group. And one patient had superficial infection in rim fixation group and one patient had periprosthetic fracture in no rim fixation group. Survival rate was higher in the peripheral rim fixation group (97.3%) than no rim fixation group (78.6%, P=0.028)

Conclusion

Based on our findings, peripheral rim fixation might be recommended to improve short-term outcome after revision total hip arthroplasty using jumbo cup.

[Effect of Jumbo cups for total hip arthroplasty revision on femoral offset and hip center of rotation]

Objective

To investigate the change of the femoral offset and hip center of rotation (COR) after using Jumbo cups in total hip arthroplasty (THA) revision.

Methods

The clinical data of 23 patients who underwent THA revision using Jumbo cups between January 2010 and May 2015 were retrospectively analyzed. Morselized bone graft was performed on 8 cases, morselized bone graft combined with structural bone graft on 10 cases. There were 10 males and 13 females, aged 65.4 years on average (range, 51-77 years). The disease duration was 1-24 years (mean, 8.57 years). The reasons for revision included aseptic loosening in 21 cases and periprosthetic infection in 2 cases. The Harris hip score and visual analogue scale (VAS) were 43.04±5.05 and 5.70±0.97 before operation respectively. According to the Paprosky acetabular defect classification, there were 5 cases of type I, 5 cases of type II A, 3 cases of type II B, 6 cases of type II C, and 4 cases of type III A. The X-ray films showed that the femoral offset was (40.65±4.09) mm for normal side and was (44.04±5.08) mm for affected side at preoperation, showing significant difference ( t=4.098, P=0.000). Ten patients underwent femoral offset reconstruction (43.48%) but 13 patients did not (56.52%) before operation. The COR was reconstructed in 10 cases (43.48%); COR elevation was observed in 11 cases (47.83%), and COR decline in 2 cases (8.69%) before operation.

Results

Primary healing of incision was obtained in all patients, with no complication of infection, vascular injury, deep vein thrombosis, dislocation of the joint, or fracture around prosthesis. All the patients were followed up 12-76 months (mean, 22.48 months). The Harris hip score and VAS were 82.09±4.53 and 0.74±0.62 at 1 year after operation respectively, showing significant differences when compared with preoperative scores ( t=37.831, P=0.000; t=22.318, P=0.000). The X-ray films showed that the femoral offset was (43.87±3.57) mm for affected side at 1 year after operation, showing no significant difference when compared with preoperative one ( t=0.250, P=0.805), but significant difference was found between affected side and normal side ( t=5.591, P=0.000). The femoral offset was restored in 16 patients (69.57%) and was not restored in 7 patients (30.43%) after operation. The COR was restored in 15 patients (65.22%) and was not restored in 8 patients (34.78%).

Conclusion

Using Jumbo cups or combined with morselized or structural bone graft is effective in restoring hip COR and femoral offset at the maximum limit in THA revision, with good short-term outcome and improved stability of acetabular prosthesis.

Tritanium acetabular wedge augments: short-term results

BACKGROUND

Reconstruction of acetabular defects in total hip arthroplasty (THA) presents a great challenge to orthopaedic surgeons. Previous studies have reported on the use and outcomes of trabecular metal acetabular augments for the reconstruction of acetabular defects. However, no study has been conducted evaluating the short-term results of tritanium acetabular wedge augments for the reconstruction of acetabular defects in THA.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted using a prospective database at a single institution including primary and revision THA patients from January 2013 to December 2014. Patients were included if they received a tritanium acetabular wedge augment system and had a minimum of 2-year follow-up (average 2.2 years ±0.3, range, 2-2.6 years). Demographic data and outcomes data [Harris Hip Score-HHS and Short Form (SF)-36] was collected. Radiographic data was also collected on THA revision cases (Paprosky classification), developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) cases (Crowe classification), and radiographic follow-up using DeLee and Charnley's classification system.

RESULTS

There were 4 revision THA patients, 3 DDH patients, and 1 patient with posttraumatic arthritis. At the latest radiographic follow-up, there were no lucent lines in DeLee and Charnley Zones I, II or III. During the follow-up period, there was no open revision surgery. The SF-36 physical score significantly improved from preoperative measurement (29.6±2.2) to postoperative measurement (52.2±8.7, P=0.003), and the SF-36 mental score also significantly improved from preoperative assessment (34.5±4.5) to postoperative assessment (52.2±7.5, P=0.003). Total HHS scores also significantly improved postoperatively (P=0.02), with significant improvements in both the pain score (P=0.01) and function score (P=0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Tritanium acetabular wedge augments in this short follow-up case series exhibit high clinical outcome scores, no radiographic lucency, and no early failures.

Comparison of Head Center Position and Screw Fixation Options Between a Jumbo Cup and an Offset Center of Rotation Cup in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Computer Simulation Study

Jumbo acetabular cups are commonly used in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). A straightforward reaming technique is used which is similar to primary THA. However, jumbo cups may also be associated with hip center elevation, limited screw fixation options, and anterior soft tissue impingement. A partially truncated hemispherical shell was designed with an offset center of rotation, thick superior rim, and beveled anterior and superior rims as an alternative to a conventional jumbo cup. A three dimensional computer simulation was used to assess head center position and safe screw trajectories. Results of this in vitro study indicate that a modified hemispherical implant geometry can reduce head center elevation while permitting favorable screw fixation trajectories into the pelvis in comparison to a conventional jumbo cup.

The jumbo acetabular component for acetabular revision

The ‘jumbo’ acetabular component is now commonly used in acetabular revision surgery where there is extensive bone loss. It offers high surface contact, permits weight bearing over a large area of the pelvis, the need for bone grafting is reduced and it is usually possible to restore centre of rotation of the hip. Disadvantages of its use include a technique in which bone structure may not be restored, a risk of excessive posterior bone loss during reaming, an obligation to employ screw fixation, limited bone ingrowth with late failure and high hip centre, leading to increased risk of dislocation. Contraindications include unaddressed pelvic dissociation, inability to implant the component with a rim fit, and an inability to achieve screw fixation. Use in acetabulae with < 50% bone stock has also been questioned. Published results have been encouraging in the first decade, with late failures predominantly because of polyethylene wear and aseptic loosening. Dislocation is the most common complication of jumbo acetabular revisions, with an incidence of approximately 10%, and often mandates revision. Based on published results, a hemispherical component with an enhanced porous coating, highly cross-linked polyethylene, and a large femoral head appears to represent the optimum tribology for jumbo acetabular revisions.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B(1 Suppl A):64–7.