Can a reconstruction algorithm in major acetabular bone loss be successful in revision hip arthroplasty?
Может ли алгоритм реконструкции при значительной потере костной ткани вертлужной впадины быть успешным при ревизионном эндопротезировании тазобедренного сустава?
2024-05-01
SCID: 54.1/22qvxvnd
Discuss with AI
Oxford Hip Score (OHS)Paprosky type III acetabular defectscup-cage reconstructioncustom-made implantshemispherical acetabular componentimplant survival (Kaplan-Meier)major acetabular bone lossporous metal augmentreconstruction algorithm
Figures from the paper
Abstract (AI)
Aims: The aims of this study were to determine the success of a reconstruction algorithm used in major acetabular bone loss, and to further define the indications for custom-made implants in major acetabular bone loss. Methods: We reviewed a consecutive series of Paprosky type III acetabular defects treated according to a reconstruction algorithm. IIIA defects were planned to use a superior augment and hemispherical acetabular component. IIIB defects were planned to receive either a hemispherical acetabular component plus augments, a cup-cage reconstruction, or a custom-made implant. We used national digital health records and registry reports to identify any reoperation or re-revision procedure and Oxford Hip Score (OHS) for patient-reported outcomes. Implant survival was determined via Kaplan-Meier analysis. Results: A total of 105 procedures were carried out in 100 patients (five bilateral) with a mean age of 73 years (42 to 94). In the IIIA defects treated, 72.0% (36 of 50) required a porous metal augment; the remaining 14 patients were treated with a hemispherical acetabular component alone. In the IIIB defects, 63.6% (35 of 55) underwent reconstruction as planned with 20 patients who actually required a hemispherical acetabular component alone. At mean follow-up of 7.6 years, survival was 94.3% (95% confidence interval 97.4 to 88.1) for all-cause revision and the overall dislocation rate was 3.8% (4 of 105). There was no difference observed in survival between type IIIA and type IIIB defects and whether a hemispherical implant alone was used for the reconstruction or not. The mean gain in OHS was 16 points. Custom-made implants were only used in six cases, in patients with either a mega-defect in which the anteroposterior diameter > 80 mm, complex pelvic discontinuity, and massive bone loss in a small pelvis. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that a reconstruction algorithm can provide a successful approach to reconstruction in major acetabular bone loss. The use of custom implants has been defined in this series and accounts for < 5% of cases.
Key Findings
1
A reconstruction algorithm for Paprosky type III acetabular defects achieved 94.3% implant survival at mean 7.6 years follow-up for all-cause revision.
2
Custom-made implants were required in fewer than 5% of cases (6 patients), reserved for mega-defects (>80 mm AP diameter), complex pelvic discontinuity, or massive bone loss in small pelvises.
3
In IIIA defects 72.0% (36 of 50) required a porous metal augment; the remainder were managed with a hemispherical acetabular component alone.
4
Mean patient-reported improvement was a 16-point gain in Oxford Hip Score.
5
Overall dislocation rate after reconstruction using the algorithm was low at 3.8% (4 of 105).
Research Object
Reconstruction algorithm for treating major acetabular bone loss in revision hip arthroplasty (Paprosky type III defects)
Research Subject
Clinical success and outcomes of using the reconstruction algorithm (including indications for hemispherical components, porous metal augments, cup-cage reconstructions, and custom-made implants), measured by implant survival, reoperation/re-revision rates, dislocation rate, and patient-reported Oxford Hip Score
Publication Details
Publication Date
2024-05-01
Journal
Publisher
ISSN
Cited by
6
Access Type
Author Information
Download PDF
Subscribe to digest