Recuperação do centro de rotação do quadril com tântalo em artroplastias de revisão^[*]

Resumo

Objetivo O objetivo do presente estudo é avaliar a capacidade de restauração do centro de rotação anatômico do quadril com uso de copas acetabulares de tântalo associado ou não a cunhas de adição.

Métodos Análise retrospectiva dos pacientes submetidos a revisão de artroplastia do quadril com uso de tântalo entre o período de junho de 2013 e abril de 2017. Foram avaliados o ângulo de abdução do componente acetabular e as distâncias horizontal e vertical do componente ao centro de rotação anatômico do quadril. As medidas foram realizadas através de radiografias da bacia realizadas no pré-operatório e na última visita de seguimento.

Resultados Obteve-se uma amostra de 21 pacientes, 11 (52%) homens e 10 (48%) mulheres, com média de idade de 62 ± 13 anos. O ângulo médio de abdução da copa acetabular reduziu de 48,76° ± 13,88° no pré-operatório para 38,52° ± 10,08° no pós-operatório, sendo esta diferença estatisticamente significativa (p = 0,001). As distâncias do centro de rotação da prótese em relação ao centro de rotação anatômico do quadril também foram menores após a cirurgia de revisão com o tântalo. A distância média horizontal de 12,74 ± 10,59 mm foi reduzida para 7,11 ± 4,84 mm, e a distância média vertical foi reduzida de 14,79 ± 10,05 mm para 4,89 ± 6,21 mm, sendo essas reduções estatisticamente significativas (p < 0,001).

Conclusão As revisões de artroplastia do quadril com copas de tântalo, associadas ou não a cunhas de adição, recuperaram de forma significativa o centro de rotação anatômico do quadril.

Palavras-chave

artroplastia de quadril - acetábulo - tântalo

^* Trabalho realizado no Hospital Madre Teresa, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brasil.

• Referências

• 1 Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007; 89 (04) 780-785
• 2 Gwam CU, Mistry JB, Mohamed NS, Thomas M, Bigart KC, Mont MA. , et al. Current Epidemiology of Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty in the United States: National Inpatient Sample 2009 to 2013. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32 (07) 2088-2092
• 3 Paprosky WG, Magnus RE. Principles of bone grafting in revision total hip arthroplasty. Acetabular technique. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1994; (298) 147-155
• 4 Lachiewicz PF, Soileau ES. Fixation, survival, and dislocation of jumbo acetabular components in revision hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2013; 95 (06) 543-548
• 5 Schreurs BW, Keurentjes JC, Gardeniers JW, Verdonschot N, Slooff TJ, Veth RP. 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 (09) 1148-1153
• 6 Mäkinen TJ, Kuzyk P, Safir OA, Backstein D, Gross AE. Role of cages in revision arthroplasty of the acetabulum. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2016; 98 (03) 233-242
• 7 Mäkinen TJ, Fichman SG, Watts E, Kuzyk PR, Safir OA, Gross AE. The role of cages in the management of severe acetabular bone defects at revision arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 2016; 98-B (1, Suppl A): 73-77
• 8 Laaksonen I, Lorimer M, Gromov K, Rolfson O, Mäkelä KT, Graves SE. , et al. Does the risk of rerevision vary between porous tantalum cups and other cementless designs after revision hip arthroplasty?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2017; 475 (12) 3015-3022
• 9 Kosashvili Y, Backstein D, Safir O, Lakstein D, Gross AE. Acetabular revision using an anti-protrusion (ilio-ischial) cage and trabecular metal acetabular component for severe acetabular bone loss associated with pelvic discontinuity. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2009; 91 (07) 870-876
• 10 Jenkins DR, Odland AN, Sierra RJ, Hanssen AD, Lewallen DG. Minimum five-year outcomes with porous tantalum acetabular cup and augment construct in complex revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2017; 99 (10) e49
• 11 Konan S, Duncan CP, Masri BA, Garbuz DS. Porous tantalum uncemented acetabular components in revision total hip arthroplasty: a minimum ten-year clinical, radiological and quality of life outcome study. Bone Joint J 2016; 98-B [phone]
• 12 Bobyn JD, Stackpool GJ, Hacking SA, Tanzer M, Krygier JJ. Characteristics of bone ingrowth and interface mechanics of a new porous tantalum biomaterial. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1999; 81 (05) 907-914
• 13 Bobyn JD, Poggie RA, Krygier JJ, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD, Lewis RJ. , et al. Clinical validation of a structural porous tantalum biomaterial for adult reconstruction. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004; 86-A (Suppl. 02) 123-129
• 14 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 (01) 33-44
• 15 Pagnano W, Hanssen AD, Lewallen DG, Shaughnessy WJ. The effect of superior placement of the acetabular component on the rate of loosening after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1996; 78 (07) 1004-1014
• 16 Bicanic G, Delimar D, Delimar M, Pecina M. Influence of the acetabular cup position on hip load during arthroplasty in hip dysplasia. Int Orthop 2009; 33 (02) 397-402
• 17 Liebs TR, Nasser L, Herzberg W, Rüther W, Hassenpflug J. The influence of femoral offset on health-related quality of life after total hip replacement. Bone Joint J 2014; 96-B (01) 36-42
• 18 Cassidy KA, Noticewala MS, Macaulay W, Lee JH, Geller JA. Effect of femoral offset on pain and function after total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2012; 27 (10) 1863-1869
• 19 Jolles BM, Zangger P, Leyvraz PF. Factors predisposing to dislocation after primary total hip arthroplasty: a multivariate analysis. J Arthroplasty 2002; 17 (03) 282-288
• 20 Patil S, Bergula A, Chen PC, Colwell Jr CW, D'Lima DD. Polyethylene wear and acetabular component orientation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003; 85-A (04) (Suppl. 04) 56-63
• 21 Kennedy JG, Rogers WB, Soffe KE, Sullivan RJ, Griffen DG, Sheehan LJ. Effect of acetabular component orientation on recurrent dislocation, pelvic osteolysis, polyethylene wear, and component migration. J Arthroplasty 1998; 13 (05) 530-534
• 22 Kim DH, Cho SH, Jeong ST, Park HB, Hwang SC, Park JS. Restoration of the center of rotation in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2010; 25 (07) 1041-1046
• 23 Asayama I, Chamnongkich S, Simpson KJ, Kinsey TL, Mahoney OM. Reconstructed hip joint position and abductor muscle strength after total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2005; 20 (04) 414-420
• 24 Delp SL, Maloney W. Effects of hip center location on the moment-generating capacity of the muscles. J Biomech 1993; 26 (4-5): 485-499
• 25 García-Rey E, García-Cimbrelo E. Abductor biomechanics clinically impact the total hip arthroplasty dislocation rate: a prospective long-term study. J Arthroplasty 2016; 31 (02) 484-490
• 26 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. Bone Joint J 2013; 95-B [phone]