Acetabular Revision With Intramedullary and Extramedullary Iliac Fixation for Pelvic Discontinuity

What Are the Functional, Radiographic, and Survivorship Outcomes of a Modified Cup-Cage Technique for Pelvic Discontinuity?

BACKGROUND

Pelvic discontinuity (PD) presents a complex challenge in revision hip arthroplasty. The traditional cup-cage construct, which involves a screw-secured porous metal cup and an overlying antiprotrusio cage, has shown promising mid- to long-term results. However, there is limited information on the outcomes of modifications to the original technique. Our study aims to evaluate a modified technique in which the cup position is determined by the placement of the overlying cage, allowing for adjustments to achieve optimal orientation.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

Among patients treated for PD with a cup-cage construct in which the cup position was dictated by the position of the cage: (1) What are Harris hip scores achieved at a minimum of 2 years of follow-up? (2) What is the Kaplan-Meier survivorship free from aseptic loosening or component migration? (3) What is the Kaplan-Meier survivorship free from revision for any reason? (4) What surgical complications are associated with the procedure?

METHODS

Between October 2013 and January 2022, we performed 805 acetabular revisions. Among these, 33 patients with PD confirmed intraoperatively were considered potentially eligible for a cup-cage construct; no other method of surgical management was used. We performed 64% (21 of 33) of these procedures from October 2013 to January 2018, with 6% (2 of 33) of patients lost to follow-up before the minimum study follow-up of 2 years; these 19 patients were monitored over a period ranging from 70 to 115 months. A further 12 patients underwent this procedure from January 2018 to January 2022, with one lost to follow-up before the minimum study follow-up of 2 years; the other patients met the minimum 2-year follow-up requirement. The remaining 30 patients with data analyzed here (10 men, 20 women) had a mean ± SD age of 61 ± 12 years and a median BMI of 29 kg/m2 (range 20 to 33 kg/m2) at the time of revision surgery. Twenty-one patients underwent revision due to aseptic loosening, and nine due to periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). The causes of PD in our patients were as follows: cup aseptic loosening without significant osteolysis in 20% (6 of 30), where the loose cup caused erosion of the host bone, leading to PD; PJI in 30% (9 of 30); intraoperative iatrogenic PD in 3% (1 of 30); and osteolysis in 47% (14 of 30), which also resulted in aseptic loosening. The median follow-up time was 79 months (range 25 to 115 months). The Harris hip score was used to evaluate clinical outcomes, with preoperative values compared with the most recent follow-up. Radiographs were reviewed by two experienced surgeons at each follow-up visit to assess component loosening (defined as migration > 5 mm or the presence of circumferential radiolucent lines) or clear migration. PD was considered healed if bridging callus or trabecular bone was visible across the site of the discontinuity. Complications were assessed through a comprehensive review of electronic medical records. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate implant survivorship and radiographic loosening, with aseptic loosening or component migration as the endpoint, as well as survivorship free from any reoperation.

RESULTS

The Harris hip score improved from a median of 39 (range 30 to 66) preoperatively to a median of 76 (range 30 to 90) postoperatively (median difference 33 [range 2 to 48]; p < 0.01). Within the limitations of two-dimensional (2D) radiographic imaging, successful bone graft integration and the healing of PD were noted in 83% (25 of 30) of patients. Kaplan-Meier survivorship free from radiographic signs of aseptic loosening or component migration was 100% (95% CI 100% to 100%) at 115 months. When any revision related to the acetabular component was considered the endpoint, survivorship free from acetabular component revision at 115 months after revision surgery was 100% (95% CI 100% to 100%). When the need for any reoperation was considered the endpoint, survivorship free from needing reoperation at 115 months after revision surgery was 85% for all patients (95% CI 73% to 100%). When including only patients with a follow-up time of > 4 years (20 of 30), survivorship free from needing reoperation at 115 months after revision surgery was 90% (95% CI 78% to 100%). Postoperative complications during the follow-up period included one early dislocation on the fifth day after surgery, treated with closed reduction and 6 weeks of abduction bracing. One femoral stem loosening occurred at 56 months postoperatively, although the acetabular component remained securely fixed; this patient declined revision surgery. One patient experienced a dislocation 5 months after surgery but refused treatment and opted for prolonged bed rest. Additionally, one patient underwent a debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention procedure 1 week after the revision surgery and subsequently showed no signs of infection at the latest follow-up, 38 months postoperatively.

CONCLUSION

Our study highlights the effectiveness of a modified cup-cage technique in complex hip revisions, showing promising results in terms of construct survivorship and low complication rates. Surgeons could consider delaying screw fixation until after positioning the cage within the porous cup to allow for optimal adjustment and using metal augments for severe bone defects to achieve better alignment. Surgeon experience with the cup-cage technique is crucial for achieving optimal outcomes. Future studies should focus on long-term follow-up visits to assess the durability and effectiveness of these modifications and explore the comparative effectiveness versus other methods, such as custom triflange components and jumbo cups with distraction.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

[Strategies for cup revision]

Hip arthroplasty revision management can range from simple procedures using standard implants to complex surgical interventions requiring the combined use of revision cups, metal augments, bone grafts, and antiprotrusio cages. The adequate restoration of biomechanics and function of the hip joint with reconstruction of the original center of rotation can be challenging. We present an overview of various available techniques with the associated implant and anchoring strategies and the respective clinical results depending on the acetabular defect situation.

Acetabular defect management and revision arthroplasty via the direct anterior approach

OBJECTIVE

Acetabular revision arthroplasty and osseous defect management through the direct anterior approach (DAA) with or without proximal extension.

INDICATIONS

Aseptic or septic component loosening, periacetabular osseous defects, pelvic discontinuity, intrapelvic cup protrusion, anterior pseudotumors, iliopsoas tendonitis, polyethylene wear or iliopsoas abscess.

CONTRAINDICATIONS

Clinically relevant gluteal tendon lesions, active infection, morbid obesity, large abdominal pannus, ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) score > III, inguinal skin infection.

SURGICAL TECHNIQUE

Electrocautery dissection is recommended to dissect the Hueter interval and to debulk pericapsular scar tissue. At all times during capsular debulking, it should be made sure not to damage the iliopsoas tendon or the neurovascular bundle. A stepwise releasing sequence can facilitate dislocation of the prosthesis. Most cases can be revised via the standard DAA but certain circumstances require an intra- or extrapelvic extension. Access to the anterior gluteal surface of the ilium can be provided using a "tensor snip". More posterior access is provided by the extensile extrapelvic approach described by Smith-Petersen. The intrapelvic Levine extension offers access to the entire visceral surface of the ilium and large parts of the anterior column.

POSTOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT

Patient revised via the intra- or extrapelvic extension and patients suffering from extensive soft tissue or osseous defects should undergo postoperative weight-bearing restrictions with 20 kg for 6 weeks.

RESULTS

Based on our studies, there is no limitation on the type of acetabular implant that can be used in DAA revision arthroplasty. Moreover, virtually all types of periacetabular osseous defects can be managed through the approach and its extensions. Acetabular revision arthroplasty via the DAA and its extensions is safe and can result in good midterm results.

Custom Made Monoflange Acetabular Components for the Treatment of Paprosky Type III Defects

PURPOSE

Patient-specific, flanged acetabular components are used for the treatment of Paprosky type III defects during revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). This monocentric retrospective cohort study analyzes the outcome of patients treated with custom made monoflanged acetabular components (CMACs) with intra- and extramedullary iliac fixation.

METHODS

14 patients were included who underwent revision THA with CMACs for the treatment of Paprosky type III defects. Mechanism of THA failure was infection in 4 and aseptic loosening in 10 patients. Seven patients underwent no previous revision, the other seven patients underwent three or more previous revisions.

RESULTS

At a mean follow-up of 35.4 months (14-94), the revision rate of the implant was 28.3%. Additionally, one perioperative dislocation and one superficial wound infection occurred. At one year postoperatively, we found a significant improvement of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) score (p = 0.015). Postoperative radiographic analysis revealed good hip joint reconstruction with a mean leg length discrepancy of 3 mm (-8-20), a mean lateralization of the horizontal hip center of rotation of 8 mm (-8-35), and a mean proximalization of the vertical hip center of rotation of 6 mm (13-26). Radiolucency lines were present in 30%.

CONCLUSION

CMACs can be considered an option for the treatment of acetabular bone loss in revision THA. Iliac intra- and extramedullary fixation allows soft tissue-adjusted hip joint reconstruction and improves hip function. However, failure rates are high, with periprosthetic infection being the main threat to successful outcome.

Revision Arthroplasty Through the Direct Anterior Approach Using an Asymmetric Acetabular Component

Despite increasing numbers of primary hip arthroplasties performed through the direct anterior approach (DAA), there is a lack of literature on DAA revision arthroplasty. The present study was performed in order to evaluate outcomes and revision rates after revision through the DAA using an asymmetric acetabular component with optional intra- and extramedullary fixation. In a retrospective cohort study, we analyzed prospectively collected data of 57 patients (61 hips, 43 female, 18 male) who underwent aseptic acetabular component revision through the DAA with the abovementioned implant system between January 2015 and December 2017. The mean follow-up was 40 months (12–56). Survival rates were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method. All complications were documented and functional outcomes were assessed pre- and postoperatively. Kaplan–Meier analysis revealed an estimated five-year implant survival of 97% (confidence interval CI 87–99%). The estimated five-year survival with revision for any cause was 93% (CI 83–98%). The overall revision rate was 6.6% (n = 4). Two patients had to undergo revision due to periprosthetic infection (3.3%). In one patient, the acetabular component was revised due to aseptic loosening four months postoperatively. Another patient suffered from postoperative iliopsoas impingement and was treated successfully by arthroscopic iliopsoas tenotomy. Two (3.3%) of the revised hips dislocated postoperatively. The mean Harris Hip Score improved from 35 (2–66) preoperatively to 86 (38–100) postoperatively (p < 0.001). The hip joint’s anatomical center of rotation was restored at a high degree of accuracy. Our findings demonstrate that acetabular revision arthroplasty through the DAA using an asymmetric acetabular component with optional intra- and extramedullary fixation is safe and practicable, resulting in good radiographic and clinical midterm results.