Trueba DC, Gil OF, Reyes MF, Minueza MT, Navarrete ÁJM

Language: Spanish
References: 11
Page: 182-188
PDF size: 188.17 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Objective: To review our experience with the various acetabular reconstruction techniques used during revision arthroplasty based on the defect in each patient. Material and methods: We undertook a retrospective, descriptive, observational study of patients who underwent acetabular reconstruction during revision arthroplasty, from January 1997 to January 2005. We documented the type of acetabular defect, the type of cup and graft used, the complications, and the pre- and postoperative assessment with the Harris scale. Data were analyzed with the SPSS software and the Wilcoxon test (p ‹ 0.05). Results: Seventy-six patients underwent surgery. Mean time elapsed between the primary replacement and the revision was 5 years. The acetabular defects found were: 16 type I, 22 type II, 30 type IIIA, and 8 type IIIB. The mean Harris score was 44 preoperatively and 76 postoperatively. The most frequently used technique involved the use of an autograft, a structural allograft with a porous threaded cup or a reinforcement ring. The most common complications included dislocation 5%, infection 3%, graft loss and cup loosening 21%, and loss of the hip center of rotation 15% (p ‹ 0.05). Conclusions: Acetabular reconstruction is technically challenging and involves high failure and complication rates, thus providing little improvement in patient activity. It is important to restore the hip center of rotation to improve function. The reconstruction techniques we used are the most common ones and are described in the literature.

REFERENCES

1. Sporer SM, Paprosky WG, O Rourke M: Managing Bone Loss in acetabular revision: selected instructional course lecture. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005; 87-A(7): 1620-30.

2. Paprosky WG, Sporer SM: The use of structural distal femoral allografts for acetabular reconstruction: average ten year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005; 87-A(4): 760-5.

3. Gerber A, Pisan M, Zurakowski D: Ganz reinforcement ring for reconstruction of acetabular defects in revision total Hip Arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003; 85-A(12): 2358-64.

4. Paprosky WG, Perona PG, Lawrence JM: Acetabular defect classification and surgical reconstruction in revision arthroplasty. A 6-year follow-up evaluation. J Arthroplasty 1994; 9: 33–44.

5. Gross A, Blackley H, Wong P, et al: The use of allografts in orthopaedic surgery: parts II: the role of allografts in revision arthroplasty of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2002; 84-A(4): 655-67.

6. D’Antonio JA, Capello WN, Steinberg ME, et al: Classification and management of acetabular abnormalities in total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1989; 243: 126–37.

7. Gaffey JL, Callaghan JJ, Pedersen DR, et al: Cementless acetabular fixation at fifteen years. A comparison with the same surgeon’s results following acetabular fixation with cement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004; 86: 257–61.

8. Templeton JE, Callaghan JJ, Goetz DD, et al: Revision of a cemented acetabular component to a cementless acetabular component. A ten to fourteen-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2001; 83: 1706–11.

9. Della Valle CJ, Berger RA, Rosenberg AG, et al: Cementless acetabular reconstruction in revision total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004; 420: 96–100.

10. Hallstrom BR, Golladay GJ, Vittetoe DA, et al: Cementless acetabular revision with the Harris-Galante porous prosthesis. Results after a minimum of ten years of follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004; 86: 1007–11.

11. Chen WM, Engh CA Jr, Hopper RH Jr, et al: Acetabular revision with use of a bilobed component inserted without cement in patients who have acetabular bone-stock deficiency. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2000; 82: 197–206.