Download PDF
Z Orthop Unfall 2018; 156(06): 692-703
DOI: 10.1055/a-0628-7423
Aus den Sektionen – AE Deutsche Gesellschaft für Endoprothetik
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Azetabuläre Revision: Rekonstruktion kavitärer und segmentaler Defekte unter besonderer Berücksichtigung modularer hoch poröser Pfannensysteme

Acetabular Revision: Reconstruction of Cavitary and Segmental Defects with Special Consideration of Modular Highly Porous Acetabular Revision Systems
Tobias Freitag
Klinik für Orthopädie, Universitätsklinikum Ulm
,
Martin Faschingbauer
Klinik für Orthopädie, Universitätsklinikum Ulm
,
Bernd Lutz
Klinik für Orthopädie, Universitätsklinikum Ulm
,
Ralf Bieger
Klinik für Orthopädie, Universitätsklinikum Ulm
,
Heiko Reichel
Klinik für Orthopädie, Universitätsklinikum Ulm
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
14 December 2018 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Aufgrund der steigenden Zahl endoprothetischer Primärimplantationen am Hüftgelenk werden auch Wechseleingriffe eine zunehmende Herausforderung darstellen. Nicht selten wird der Operateur hierbei mit relevanten azetabulären Defektsituationen konfrontiert. Eine sorgfältige präoperative Planung ist unerlässlich, um für den Patienten eine funktionell zufriedenstellende und möglichst langfristige Versorgung zu erreichen. Zu den Behandlungsmöglichkeiten azetabulärer Defekte gehören poröse hemisphärische Pfannen, metallische Augmente, elliptische Pfannen, zementierte Implantate, Ringe, Allotransplantate, Individualimplantate und Kombinationen der genannten Komponenten. Neben großen hemisphärischen Pfannen werden zunehmend modulare hoch poröse Revisionssysteme zur Versorgung höhergradiger Defektsituationen eingesetzt. Der vorliegende Beitrag bietet einen Überblick über die relevante Literatur und implantatspezifische Besonderheiten der unterschiedlichen Versorgungsstrategien.

Abstract

Due to the increasing number of primary hip arthroplasty procedures, revision surgery will be an increasing challenge. The surgeon is frequently confronted with important acetabular defects. Careful preoperative planning is essential to achieve functional and long-term success. Treatment options include porous hemispheric cups, porous metal augments, oblong cups, cemented implants, rings, allografts, patient specific implants and component combinations. In addition to large hemispherical cups, modular porous metal revision systems are increasingly being used to treat severe acetabular bone loss. This article provides an overview of relevant literature and implant-specific features of different reconstruction strategies.

Schlüsselwörter

Hüfttotalendoprothesenwechsel - azetabuläre Defekte - Versorgungsstrategien

Key words

revision total hip arthroplasty - acetabular defects - reconstruction strategies
 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Bleß HK, Kip M. Hrsg. Weißbuch Gelenkersatz. Heidelberg: Springer; 2017
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Pabinger C, Geissler A. Utilization rates of hip arthroplasty in OECD countries. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2014; 22: 734-741
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Colo E, Rijnen WH, Schreurs BW. The biological approach in acetabular revision surgery: impaction bone grafting and a cemented cup. Hip Int 2015; 25: 361-367
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Gilbody J, Taylor C, Bartlett GE. et al. Clinical and radiographic outcomes of acetabular impaction grafting without cage reinforcement for revision hip replacement: a minimum ten-year follow-up study. Bone Joint J 2014; 96-B: 188-194
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Deirmengian GK, Zmistowski B, OʼNeil JT. et al. Management of acetabular bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011; 93: 1842-1852
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Gustke KA, Levering MF, Miranda MA. Use of jumbo cups for revision of acetabulae with large bony defects. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29: 199-203
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 DʼAntonio JA. Periprosthetic bone loss of the acetabulum. Classification and management. Orthop Clin North Am 1992; 23: 279-290
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 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: 1706-1711
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Harris WH. Porous hemispherical sockets: when round is right. Orthopedics 2001; 24: 877-878
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Wasielewski RC, Cooperstein LA, Kruger MP. et al. Acetabular anatomy and the transacetabular fixation of screws in total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1990; 72: 501-508
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Lakstein D, Backstein D, Safir O. et al. Trabecular Metal cups for acetabular defects with 50 % or less host bone contact. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009; 467: 2318-2324
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 von Roth P, Abdel MP, Harmsen WS. et al. Uncemented jumbo cups for revision total hip arthroplasty: a concise follow-up, at a mean of twenty years, of a previous report. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2015; 97: 284-287
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Nwankwo C, Dong NN, Heffernan CD. et al. Do jumbo cups cause hip center elevation in revision THA? A computer simulation. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014; 472: 572-576
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Patel JV, Masonis JL, Bourne RB. et al. The fate of cementless jumbo cups in revision hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2003; 18: 129-133
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Fan CY, Chen WM, Lee OK. et al. Acetabular revision arthroplasty using jumbo cups: an experience in Asia. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2008; 128: 809-813
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Lachiewicz PF, Soileau ES. Fixation, survival, and dislocation of jumbo acetabular components in revision hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2013; 95: 543-548
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Callaghan JJ, Salvati EA, Pellicci PM. et al. Results of revision for mechanical failure after cemented total hip replacement, 1979 to 1982. A two to five-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1985; 67: 1074-1085
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Kavanagh BF, Ilstrup DM, Fitzgerald jr. RH. Revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1985; 67: 517-526
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Stromberg CN, Herberts P. A multicenter 10-year study of cemented revision total hip arthroplasty in patients younger than 55 years old. A follow-up report. J Arthroplasty 1994; 9: 595-601
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Katz RP, Callaghan JJ, Sullivan PM. et al. Long-term results of revision total hip arthroplasty with improved cementing technique. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1997; 79: 322-326
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Slooff TJ, Buma P, Schreurs BW. et al. Acetabular and femoral reconstruction with impacted graft and cement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1996; 324: 108-115
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Schreurs BW, Slooff TJ, Buma P. et al. Acetabular reconstruction with impacted morsellised cancellous bone graft and cement. A 10- to 15-year follow-up of 60 revision arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1998; 80: 391-395
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Lie SA, Havelin LI, Furnes ON. et al. Failure rates for 4762 revision total hip arthroplasties in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2004; 86: 504-509
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Schreurs BW, Keurentjes JC, Gardeniers JW. et al. 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Berry DJ. Antiprotrusio cages for acetabular revision. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004; 420: 106-112
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Abolghasemian M, Sadeghi Naini M, Tangsataporn S. et al. Reconstruction of massive uncontained acetabular defects using allograft with cage or ring reinforcement: an assessment of the graftʼs ability to restore bone stock and its impact on the outcome of re-revision. Bone Joint J 2014; 96: 319-324
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Philippe R, Gosselin O, Sedaghatian J. et al. Acetabular reconstruction using morselized allograft and a reinforcement ring for revision arthroplasty with Paprosky type II and III bone loss: survival analysis of 95 hips after 5 to 13 years. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2012; 98: 129-137
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Koob S, Scheidt S, Randau TM. et al. [Biological downsizing: Acetabular defect reconstruction in revision total hip arthroplasty]. Orthopade 2017; 46: 158-167
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Sembrano JN, Cheng EY. Acetabular cage survival and analysis of factors related to failure. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2008; 466: 1657-1665
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Mäkinen TJ, Abolghasemian M, Watts E. et al. Management of massive acetabular bone defects in revision arthroplasty of the hip using a reconstruction cage and porous metal augment. Bone Joint J 2017; 99: 607-613
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Gunther KP, Wegner T, Kirschner S. et al. [Modular reconstruction in acetabular revision with antiprotrusio cages and metal augments: the cage-and-augment system]. Oper Orthop Traumatol 2014; 26: 141-155
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 García-Rey E, Fernández-Fernández R, Durán D. et al. Reconstruction of the rotation center of the hip after oblong cups in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Traumatol 2013; 14: 39-49
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Landor I, Vavrik P, Jahoda D. et al. The Long Oblique Revision component in revision arthroplasty of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2009; 91: 24-30
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Rudert M, Holzapfel BM, Kratzer F. et al. [Standardized reconstruction of acetabular bone defects using the cranial socket system]. Oper Orthop Traumatol 2010; 22: 241-255
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Levine B, Della Valle CJ, Jacobs JJ. Applications of porous tantalum in total hip arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2006; 14: 646-655
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Whitehouse MR, Masri BA, Duncan CP. 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 2015; 473: 521-527
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Schoon J, Geissler S, Traeger J. et al. Multi-elemental nanoparticle exposure after tantalum component failure in hip arthroplasty: In-depth analysis of a single case. Nanomedicine 2017; 13: 2415-2423
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Beckmann NA, Weiss S, Klotz MC. et al. Loosening after acetabular revision: comparison of trabecular metal and reinforcement rings. A systematic review. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29: 229-235
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Webb JE, McGill RJ, Palumbo BT. et al. The Double-Cup Construct: A Novel Treatment Strategy for the Management of Paprosky IIIA and IIIB Acetabular Defects. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32: S225-S231
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Nehme A, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD. Modular porous metal augments for treatment of severe acetabular bone loss during revision hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004; 429: 201-208
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Weeden SH, Schmidt RH. The use of tantalum porous metal implants for Paprosky 3A and 3B defects. J Arthroplasty 2007; 22: 151-155
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Siegmeth A, Duncan CP, Masri BA. et al. Modular tantalum augments for acetabular defects in revision hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009; 467: 199-205
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Lingaraj K, Teo YH, Bergman N. The management of severe acetabular bone defects in revision hip arthroplasty using modular porous metal components. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2009; 91: 1555-1560
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Fernandez-Fairen M, Murcia A, Blanco A. et al. Revision of failed total hip arthroplasty acetabular cups to porous tantalum components: a 5-year follow-up study. J Arthroplasty 2010; 25: 865-872
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Del Gaizo DJ, Kancherla V, Sporer SM. et al. Tantalum augments for Paprosky IIIA defects remain stable at midterm followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2012; 470: 395-401
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Abolghasemian M, Tangsataporn S, Sternheim A. et al. Combined trabecular metal acetabular shell and augment for acetabular revision with substantial bone loss: a mid-term review. Bone Joint J 2013; 95: 166-172
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Whitehouse MR, Masri BA, Duncan CP. 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 2015; 473: 521-527
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Jenkins DR, Odland AN, Sierra RJ. et al. 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: e49
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Mäkinen TJ, Fichman SG, Watts E. et al. The role of cages in the management of severe acetabular bone defects at revision arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 2016; 98-B: 73-77
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Amenabar T, Rahman WA, Hetaimish BM. et al. Promising Mid-term Results With a Cup-cage Construct for Large Acetabular Defects and Pelvic Discontinuity. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2016; 474: 408-414
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Abolghasemian M, Tangsaraporn S, Drexler M. et al. The challenge of pelvic discontinuity: cup-cage reconstruction does better than conventional cages in mid-term. Bone Joint J 2014; 96: 195-200
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Goodman GP, Engh jr. CA. The custom triflange cup: build it and they will come. Bone Joint J 2016; 98: 68-72
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Gladnick BP, Fehring KA, Odum SM. et al. Midterm Survivorship After Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty With a Custom Triflange Acetabular Component. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33: 500-504
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Sporer SM. How to do a revision total hip arthroplasty: revision of the acetabulum. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011; 93: 1359-1366
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar