High proximal migration in cemented acetabular revisions operated with bone impaction grafting; 47 revision cups followed with RSA for 17 years

Outcomes of Impaction Bone Grafting in the Management of Acetabular Defects with the Use of Uncemented Acetabular Cups: Do Autografts and Irradiated Femoral Head Allografts Integrate?

Introduction

Acetabular impaction bone grafting (AIBG) has been used widely to reconstruct acetabular defects in complex primary and revision cases. The aim of this study was to look at the outcomes AIBG using either frozen irradiated femoral head allografts or autografts with uncemented acetabular cups.

Method

We retrospectively reviewed 38 patients who had AIBG and uncemented cup reconstruction of the acetabulum performed between 2008 and 2021 for complex primary and revision surgery. Graft incorporation, radiological loosening and cup migration were evaluated in follow-up X-rays.

Result

There were 24 complex primary and 14 revision total hip arthroplasty. Autografts were used in 10 hips with smaller defects, while 28 hips with larger defects required frozen irradiated femoral head allografts. Using Paprosky classification to evaluate acetabular defects; 8 patients were classified as 2A, 12 as 2B, 7 as 2C, 8 as 3A and 3 as 3B. The Kaplan-Meier survival rate for AIBG with uncemented cups in our series is 89.70% in 10 years. Acetabular cup position was anatomically restored in all autograft AIBG cases and in 25 out of 28 in the allograft group. The mean pre-operative Oxford Hip Score (OHS) was 19 (range 10-24) and post-operative OHS was 39 (range 21-48) (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

The mid- to long-term results for AIBG and uncemented acetabular cups is good. With newer and more porous uncemented cups especially revision cups, it may serve as an extended indication to achieve solid fixation together with AIBG technique in managing acetabular defects of ≤ 3A.

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.

Impaction bone grafting in hip re-revision surgery

AIMS

Bone stock restoration of acetabular bone defects using impaction bone grafting (IBG) in total hip arthroplasty may facilitate future re-revision in the event of failure of the reconstruction. We hypothesized that the acetabular bone defect during re-revision surgery after IBG was smaller than during the previous revision surgery. The clinical and radiological results of re-revisions with repeated use of IBG were also analyzed.

METHODS

In a series of 382 acetabular revisions using IBG and a cemented component, 45 hips (45 patients) that had failed due to aseptic loosening were re-revised between 1992 and 2016. Acetabular bone defects graded according to Paprosky during the first and the re-revision surgery were compared. Clinical and radiological findings were analyzed over time. Survival analysis was performed using a competing risk analysis.

RESULTS

Intraoperative bone defect during the initial revision included 19 Paprosky type IIIA and 29 Paprosky type IIIB hips; at re-revision, seven hips were Paprosky type II, 27 type IIIA and 11 were type IIIB (p = 0.020). The mean preoperative Harris Hip Score was 45.4 (SD 6.4), becoming 80.7 (SD 12.7) at the final follow-up. In all, 12 hips showed radiological migration of the acetabular component, and three required further revision surgery. The nine-year cumulative failure incidence (nine patients at risk) of the acetabular component for further revision surgery was 9.6% (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.9 to 21.0) for any cause, and 7.5% (95% CI 1.9 to 18.5) for aseptic loosening. Hips with a greater hip height had a higher risk for radiological migration (odds ratio 1.09, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.17; p = 0.008).

CONCLUSION

Bone stock restoration can be obtained using IBG in revision hip surgery. This technique is also useful in re-revision surgery; however, a better surgical technique including a closer distance to hip rotation centre could decrease the risk of radiological migration of the acetabular component. A longer follow-up is required to assess potential fixation deterioration. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(3):492-499.

Minimum ten-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing acetabular component fixation of two porous in-growth surfaces using radiosteriometric analysis

Aims

To compare the in vivo long-term fixation achieved by two acetabular components with different porous ingrowth surfaces using radiostereometric analysis (RSA).

Methods

This was a minimum ten-year follow-up of a prospective randomized trial of 62 hips with two different porous ingrowth acetabular components. RSA exams had previously been acquired through two years of follow-up. Patients returned for RSA examination at a minimum of ten years. In addition, radiological appearance of these acetabular components was analyzed, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) obtained.

Results

In all, 15 hips were available at ten years. There was no statistically significant difference in PROMS between the two groups; PROMs were improved at ten years compared to preoperative scores. Conventional radiological assessment revealed well-fixed components. There was minimal movement for both porous surfaces in translation (X, Y, Z, 3D translation in mm (median and interquartile range (IQR)), StikTite (Smith and Nephew, Memphis, Tennessee, USA): 0.03 (1.08), 0.12 (0.7), 0.003 (2.3), 0.37 (0.30), and Roughcoat (Smith and Nephew): -0.6 (0.59),–0.1 (0.49), 0.1 (1.12), 0.48 (0.38)), and rotation (X, Y, Z rotation in degrees (median and IQR), (Stiktite: -0.4 (3), 0.28 (2), -0.2 (1), and Roughcoat: - 0.4 (1),–0.1 (1), 0.2 (2)). There was no statistically significant difference between the two cohorts (p-value for X, Y, Z, 3D translation - 0.54, 0.46, 0.87, 0.55 and for X, Y, Z rotation - 0.41, 0.23, 0.23 respectively) at ten years. There was significant correlation between two years and ten years 3D translation for all components (r = 0.81(p =< 0.001)).

Conclusion

Both porous ingrowth surfaces demonstrated excellent fixation on plain radiographs and with RSA at ten years. Short-term RSA data are good predictors for long-term migration data.

Implant migration and bone mineral density measured simultaneously by low-dose CT scans: a 2-year study on 17 acetabular revisions with impaction bone grafting

Background and purpose - Early postoperative implant migration predicts failure of joint replacements. Bone mineral density reflects bone quality and bone-graft incorporation. Implant migration and bone densitometry analysis usually require special equipment. We investigated cup migration and bone mineral density changes simultaneously with low-dose CT scans after acetabular revision hip arthroplasty using impaction bone grafting.Patients and methods - We performed a low-dose CT postoperatively, after 6 weeks, and after 2 years in 17 patients, all revised using impaction bone grafting and a graft-compressing titanium shell in the acetabulum. 6 patients had combined segmental and cavitary acetabular defects. Cup migration was analyzed using CT-based micromotion analysis (CTMA). Bone mineral density was determined in the graft and in surrounding native bone using volumetric quantitative computed tomography (QCT). The bone graft volume was calculated from 3D reconstructions.Results - At 2 years, the translations were 1.5 (95% CI 0.4-2.6) mm in proximal direction, -0.6 (CI -1.6 to 0.4) in the medial direction and 0.3 (CI 0.0-0.6) in the anterior direction. The mean volume of impacted bone graft was 40 cm³ (CI 28-52). In the graft bone mineral density increased 14% after 6 weeks and 23% after 2 years. There was 1 mechanical failure.Interpretation - Proximal migration of the acetabular component was low and comparable to previous reports. There was a rapid increase of bone mineral density in the bone graft. Low-dose CT scans make migration analysis and bone densitometry measurements possible in the same setting, offering great diagnostic potential for hip arthroplasty patients.

Acetabular Component Migration Measured Using Radiostereometric Analysis Following Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Scoping Review

* Radiostereometric analysis (RSA) studies of acetabular component migration following revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) have a large variation in their methodology and reporting of results, and, therefore, they may not be directly comparable. Standardization of RSA reporting is recommended. * In our review of RSA studies, there was a trend for cemented acetabular components to have larger amounts of early proximal migration than uncemented acetabular components. Results regarding cemented and uncemented components should be reported separately. * Cohorts that addressed larger acetabular defects were associated with a larger amount of early migration. * Reporting the migration result at 1 and 2 years postoperatively may enable earlier identification of poorly performing implants.

Post-operative hip centre restoration and migration after impaction bone grafting in revision and complex primary hip arthroplasty

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES

Although impaction grafting proved efficacy in the reconstruction of acetabular defects in primary and revision hip arthroplasty, its role in large segmental defects is still debatable. Our objective is to determine hip centre restoration and last follow-up migration after acetabular reconstruction with impaction grafting in different types of acetabular defects.

METHODS

This is a single-centre retrospective radiographic study of (107) total hip arthroplasty (42 primary and 65 revision) in (104) patients using impaction grafting. The available radiographs were examined for normal, preoperative, immediate postoperative, and last follow-up vertical (Y) and horizontal (X) hip centre. Maximum acetabular defect distance (MADD), presence, and size of the mesh were recorded.

RESULTS

In type I and II AAOS defects, the post-operative hip centre was not significantly different from the normal hip centre on the contralateral healthy side. In type III defects, there was a significant variation between the normal hip centre and the post-operative hip centre (P value 0.034 and 0.001 for Y and X, respectively). At 44-month follow-up of 36 hips, 31 (86%) hips migrated. The mean migration ± SD was 5.72 ± 3.7, 2, 4.15 ± 1.2, and 11.26 ± 3.9 mm for types I, II, and III, respectively (P value 0.211). Hips with MADD > 15 mm, especially with large mesh sizes migrate significantly more (P value = 0.042, 0.037, and 0.039, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Hip centre restoration was better, and migration was less for type I and II AAOS rather than for type III. Other options for reconstruction should be considered.