Bone Defects in Acetabular Revision Surgery. Imaging and Classifications

2018 ◽  
pp. 33-48
Author(s):  
Eduardo García-Rey
Keyword(s):  
Revision Surgery ◽  
Bone Defects ◽  
Acetabular Revision

Measuring bone defects for acetabular revision surgery for choosing an appropriate reconstruction strategy: A concept study on plastic models

2019 ◽  
Vol 111 ◽  
pp. 103336
Author(s):  
Lukas Dankl ◽  
Agnes Mayr ◽  
Gerhard Kaufmann ◽  
Martin Thaler ◽  
Michael Nogler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Revision Surgery ◽  
Bone Defects ◽  
Acetabular Revision ◽  
Concept Study ◽  
Reconstruction Strategy

Mid-term results of a cementless primary press-fit cup in acetabular revision surgery

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
N Kolbe ◽  
B Zimmer ◽  
P Matheis ◽  
M Streit ◽  
T Gotterbarm ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Revision Surgery ◽  
Acetabular Revision ◽  
Press Fit ◽  
Mid Term Results

scholarly journals Clinical and radiological outcomes of acetabular revision surgery with trabecular titanium cups in Paprosky type II and III bone defects

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Loris Perticarini ◽  
Stefano Marco Paolo Rossi ◽  
Marta Medetti ◽  
Francesco Benazzo
Keyword(s):  
Revision Surgery ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Bone Defects ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
Type Ii ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Kaplan Meier ◽  
Prospective Case Series ◽  
Acetabular Components

Abstract Background This prospective study aims to evaluate the mid-term clinical outcomes and radiographic stability of two different types of cementless trabecular titanium acetabular components in total hip revision surgery. Methods Between December 2008 and February 2017, 104 cup revisions were performed using trabecular titanium revision cups. Mean age of patients was 70 (range 29–90; SD 11) years. The majority of revisions were performed for aseptic loosening (86 cases, 82.69%), but in all the other diagnoses (18 cases), a significant bone loss (Paprosky type II or III) was registered preoperatively. Bone defects were classified according to Paprosky acetabular classification. We observed 53 type II defects and 42 type III defects. Cups were chosen according to the type of defect. Results Average follow-up was 91 (range 24–146) months. Mean Harris Hip Score (HHS) improved from 43.7 (range 25–70; SD 9) preoperatively to 84.4 (range 46–99; SD 7.56) at last follow-up. One (1.05%) cup showed radiographic radiolucent lines inferior to 2 mm and was clinically asymptomatic. One (1.05%) cup was loose and showed periacetabular allograft reabsorption. Kaplan–Meier survivorship was assessed to be 88.54% (95% CI 80.18–93.52%) at 71 months, with failure of the cup for any reason as the endpoint. Conclusion Trabecular titanium revision cups showed good clinical and radiographic results at mid-term follow-up in Paprosky type II and III bone defects. Level of evidence Level IV prospective case series

The Burch-Schneider antiprotrusio cage in acetabular revision surgery

2000 ◽  
Vol 15 (8) ◽  
pp. 959-963 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephan W. Wachtl ◽  
Maximilien Jung ◽  
Roland P. Jakob ◽  
Emanuel Gautier
Keyword(s):  
Revision Surgery ◽  
Acetabular Revision

Bone Defect Determines Acetabular Revision Surgery

2014 ◽  
Vol 24 (10_suppl) ◽  
pp. 33-36 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eduardo García-Cimbrelo ◽  
Eduardo García-Rey
Keyword(s):  
Bone Defect ◽  
Revision Surgery ◽  
Acetabular Revision

scholarly journals The use of morselized allografts without impaction and cemented cage support in acetabular revision surgery: a 4- to 9-year follow-up

2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Huifeng Ding ◽  
Yuanqing Mao ◽  
Bin Yu ◽  
Zhenan Zhu ◽  
Huiwu Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Revision Surgery ◽  
Acetabular Revision

Impaction bone grafting in hip re-revision surgery

2021 ◽  
Vol 103-B (3) ◽  
pp. 492-499
Author(s):  
Eduardo Garcia-Rey ◽  
Laura Saldaña ◽  
Eduardo Garcia-Cimbrelo
Keyword(s):  
Aseptic Loosening ◽  
Acetabular Component ◽  
Revision Surgery ◽  
Bone Grafting ◽  
Bone Defects ◽  
Bone Stock ◽  
Impaction Bone Grafting ◽  
Acetabular Bone ◽  
Acetabular Bone Defects

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document