SpringerLink
Log in

Continued Good Results With Modular Trabecular Metal Augments for Acetabular Defects in Hip Arthroplasty at 7 to 11 Years

  • Symposium: 2014 Hip Society Proceedings
  • Published:
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

Abstract

Background

Reconstruction of large acetabular defects remains a substantial challenge in hip arthroplasty. There remains a paucity of data on the long-term results of acetabular trabecular metal augments.

Questions/purposes

The purpose of this study was to assess the survivorship, clinical outcomes, restoration of center of rotation of the hip, and radiological signs of component fixation of trabecular metal augments in the context of reconstruction of acetabular defects.

Methods

Between 2002 and 2005, we performed 56 revision (n = 53) and primary (n = 3) THAs using trabecular metal augments in combination with a trabecular metal acetabular component. Of the 56 patients, 16 (29%) died during followup. Of the 40 surviving patients, 37 (93%) had complete radiological followup, 23 (58%) had complete outcome questionnaire followup, and 17 (42%) provided partial questionnaire responses in the clinic or over the telephone. Median followup was 110 months (range, 88–128 months). During that period, we used these implants when preoperative templating indicated that an augment would be required to achieve acetabular implant stability with restoration of the hip center of rotation. We also chose during surgery to use an augment when we could not achieve a stable acetabular trial component without one. The combination of trabecular metal augments and trabecular metal shells was used in 18% (53 of 292) of our acetabular revisions during that time. Survivorship, functional outcome (WOMAC and Oxford hip score), health status (SF-12), and osseointegration according to the criteria of Moore and presence of radiolucencies were determined.

Results

Survivorship of the augments at 10 years was 92% (95% confidence interval, 81%–97%). Four patients underwent cup revision, one for infection and three for loosening. The mean WOMAC global score was 79 (SD 17), the mean Oxford hip score 76 (SD 18), the mean physical component SF-12 score was 39 (SD 11), and the mean mental component SF-12 score was 52 (SD 9). The center of rotation was corrected from more than 35 mm above the inter-teardrop line in 48 of 56 patients preoperatively to only five of 46 postoperatively. One patient had radiographic findings suggestive of loosening, but this patient was asymptomatic.

Conclusions

The results of the acetabular trabecular metal augments continue to be encouraging in the medium to long term with low rates of revision or loosening in this complex group of patients. We continue to recommend the use of these augments in the reconstruction of complex acetabular defects.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, therapeutic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1A–B
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4A–C

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Abolghasemian M, Tangsataporn S, Sternheim A, Backstein D, Safir O, Gross AE. Combined trabecular metal acetabular shell and augment for acetabular revision with substantial bone loss: a mid-term review. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2013;95:166–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Antoniades J, Pellegrini VD. Cross-sectional anatomy of the ilium: implications for acetabular component placement in total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470:3537–3541.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Banerjee S, Issa K, Kapadia BH, Pivec R, Khanuja HS, Mont MA. Systematic review on outcomes of acetabular revisions with highly-porous metals. Int Orthop. 2014;38:689–702.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW. Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol. 1988;15:1833–1840.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bobyn JD, Poggie RA, Krygier JJ, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD, Lewis RJ, Unger AS, O’Keefe TJ, Christie MJ, Nasser S, Wood JE, Stulberg SD, Tanzer M. Clinical validation of a structural porous tantalum biomaterial for adult reconstruction. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86(Suppl 2):123–129.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Buttaro MA, Comba F, Pusso R, Piccaluga F. Acetabular revision with metal mesh, impaction bone grafting, and a cemented cup. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466:2482–2490.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Chen WM, Engh CA, Hopper RH, McAuley JP. 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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Christie MJ. Clinical applications of trabecular metal. Am J Orthop. 2002;31:219–220.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A, Murray DW. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996;78:185–190.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Dearborn JT, Harris WH. High placement of an acetabular component inserted without cement in a revision total hip arthroplasty. Results after a mean of ten years. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999;81:469–480.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Dearborn JT, Harris WH. Acetabular revision arthroplasty using so-called jumbo cementless components: an average 7-year follow-up study. J Arthroplasty. 2000;15:8–15.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Delp SL, Wixson RL, Komattu AV, Kocmond JH. How superior placement of the joint center in hip arthroplasty affects the abductor muscles. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996;328:137–146.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Field RE, Cronin MD, Singh PJ. The Oxford hip scores for primary and revision hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87:618–622.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Garbuz D, Morsi E, Gross AE. Revision of the acetabular component of a total hip arthroplasty with a massive structural allograft. Study with a minimum five-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1996;78:693–697.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Gehrke T, Bangert Y, Schwantes B, Gebauer M, Kendoff D. Acetabular revision in THA using tantalum augments combined with impaction bone grafting. Hip Int. 2013;23:359–365.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Gie GA, Linder L, Ling RS, Simon JP, Slooff TJ, Timperley AJ. Impacted cancellous allografts and cement for revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1993;75:14–21.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Gross AE. Revision arthroplasty of the acetabulum with restoration of bone stock. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999;369:198–207.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Gross AE, Goodman S. The current role of structural grafts and cages in revision arthroplasty of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;429:193–200.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Gustke KA, Levering MF, Miranda MA. Use of jumbo cups for revision of acetabulae with large bony defects. J Arthroplasty. 2013;29:199–203.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Judge A, Arden NK, Batra RN, Thomas G, Beard D, Javaid MK, Cooper C, Murray DW, Exeter Primary Outcomes Study (EPOS) group. The association of patient characteristics and surgical variables on symptoms of pain and function over 5 years following primary hip-replacement surgery: a prospective cohort study. BMJ Open. 2013;3:e002453.

  21. Kim D-H, Cho S-H, Jeong S-T, Park H-B, Hwang S-C, Park J-S. Restoration of the center of rotation in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2010;25:1041–1046.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Lee PTH, Raz G, Safir OA, Backstein DJ, Gross AE. Long-term results for minor column allografts in revision hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:3295–3303.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Moore MS, McAuley JP, Young AM, Engh CA Sr. Radiographic signs of osseointegration in porous-coated acetabular components. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;444:176–183.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Paprosky WG, Magnus RE. Principles of bone grafting in revision total hip arthroplasty. Acetabular technique. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994;298:147–155.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Paprosky WG, Martin EL. Structural acetabular allograft in revision total hip arthroplasty. Am J Orthop. 2002;31:481–484.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Patel JV, Masonis JL, Bourne RB, Rorabeck CH. The fate of cementless jumbo cups in revision hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2003;18:129–133.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Russotti GM, Harris WH. Proximal placement of the acetabular component in total hip-arthroplasty—a long-term follow-up-study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1991;73:587–592.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Saleh KJ, Holtzman J, Gafni ASaleh L, Jaroszynski G, Wong P, Woodgate I, Davis A, Gross AE. Development, test reliability and validation of a classification for revision hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Res. 2001;19:50–56.

  30. Schreurs BW, Keurentjes JC, Gardeniers JWM, Verdonschot N, Slooff TJ, Veth RPH. Acetabular revision with impacted morsellised cancellous bone grafting and a cemented acetabular component: a 20- to 25-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009;91:1148–1153.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Schreurs BW, Luttjeboer J, Thien TM, de Waal Malefijt MC, Buma P, Veth RPH, Slooff TJ. Acetabular revision with impacted morsellized cancellous bone graft and a cemented cup in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. A concise follow-up, at eight to nineteen years, of a previous report. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91:646–651.

  32. Shinar AA, Harris WH. Bulk structural autogenous grafts and allografts for reconstruction of the acetabulum in total hip arthroplasty. Sixteen-year-average follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997;79:159–168.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Siegmeth A, Duncan CP, Masri BA, Kim WY, Garbuz DS. Modular tantalum augments for acetabular defects in revision hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467:199–205.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Slooff TJ, Buma P, Schreurs BW, Schimmel JW, Huiskes R, Gardeniers J. Acetabular and femoral reconstruction with impacted graft and cement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996;324:108–115.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Sporer SM, Paprosky WG. The use of a trabecular metal acetabular component and trabecular metal augment for severe acetabular defects. J Arthroplasty. 2006;21:83–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Sporer SM, Paprosky WG. Acetabular revision using a trabecular metal acetabular component for severe acetabular bone loss associated with a pelvic discontinuity. J Arthroplasty. 2006;21:87–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Templeton JE, Callaghan J, Goetz D, Sullivan PM, Johnston R. 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;83:1706–1711.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Utah Department of Health. Interpreting the SF-12. Salt Lake City, UT, USA: Utah Department of Health; 2004:1–17. Available at: http://www.health.utah.gov/opha/publications/2001hss/sf12/SF12_Interpreting.pdf. Accessed September 16, 2013.

  39. Ware J, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996;34:220–233.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Whaley AL, Berry DJ, Harmsen WS. Extra-large uncemented hemispherical acetabular components for revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83:1352–1357.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Williams DH, Greidanus NV, Masri BA, Duncan CP, Garbuz DS. Predictors of participation in sports after hip and knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;470:555–561.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Woodgate IG, Saleh KJ, Jaroszynski G, Agnidis Z, Woodgate MM, Gross AE. Minor column structural acetabular allografts in revision hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000;371:75–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Nelson V. Greidanus MD, MPH, for contributing patients to the study and Daphné Savoy BA, for her assistance in the preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedics, The University of British Columbia, 3rd Floor, 910 West 10th Avenue, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 4E3, Canada

    Michael R. Whitehouse PhD, MSc(Orth Eng), FRCS(Tr&Orth), Bassam A. Masri MD, FRCS(C), Clive P. Duncan MD, MSc & Donald S. Garbuz MD, MHSc

Authors
  1. Michael R. Whitehouse PhD, MSc(Orth Eng), FRCS(Tr&Orth)
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bassam A. Masri MD, FRCS(C)
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Clive P. Duncan MD, MSc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Donald S. Garbuz MD, MHSc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Donald S. Garbuz MD, MHSc.

Additional information

One or more of the authors (BAM, CPD, DSG) certify that they have or may receive payments or benefits (eg, serve as a consultant) from a commercial entity (Zimmer, Inc, Warsaw, IN, USA) related to this work. The institution of the authors has received funding from Zimmer, Inc.

All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research ® editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request.

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research ® neither advocates nor endorses the use of any treatment, drug, or device. Readers are encouraged to always seek additional information, including FDA-approval status, of any drug or device prior to clinical use.

Each author certifies that his or her institution approved the human protocol for this investigation, that all investigations were conducted in conformity with ethical principles of research, and that informed consent for participation in the study was obtained.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Whitehouse, M.R., Masri, B.A., Duncan, C.P. et al. Continued Good Results With Modular Trabecular Metal Augments for Acetabular Defects in Hip Arthroplasty at 7 to 11 Years. Clin Orthop Relat Res 473, 521–527 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-014-3861-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-014-3861-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation