Acetabular revision arthroplasty using jumbo cups: an experience in Asia
Tóm tắt
Variable degrees of bony deficiencies often complicate revisional arthrolasties of acetabular components and represent challenges to orthopedic surgeons. Many solutions exist and cementless jumbo cup reconstruction had been proven to be a feasible and successful method. Our study aimed to access the results of these cementless giant cups for managing acetabular bony defect at one institute. Between March 2000 and March 2003, 47 revisions of the failed acetabular components using the so-called “Jumbo Acetabular Cups” were enrolled in our study. All cases were followed for at least 4 years. We defined the size of the jumbo cups for the Asians to be of an outside diameter of 64 mm for men and 60 mm for women, which were 2 mm smaller than the commonly used definition in the Western countries. The radiographic outcomes and the migration of hip centers were analyzed. The endurance of these giant sockets was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier analysis. After a mean follow-up of 65 months, only three implant failures requiring re-revision were identified. The estimated 5-year survival rate according to the Kaplan-Meier analysis was 94.5%. Radiographic analysis demonstrated an improvement of vertical hip center from 31 to 27 mm proximal to the interteardrop line. Eight (17%) cups exhibited radiolucent line around the bone-prosthesis interface but did not attenuate implant instability. The complication rate was not high. Dislocation happened in five (11%) patients. One deep infection was successfully reconstructed in stage surgeries after eradication of the infection. With the aid of novel implant-coating technique and materials, jumbo cup reconstruction can achieve stability and longevity through an adequate peripheral ring-contact, regardless of inadequate implant to host bone contact. We believe that this is a reliable and easily performed reconstruction for acetabular defect.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Bozic KJ, Freiberg AA, Harris WH (2004) The high hip center. Clin Orthop Relat Res 420:101–105
Dearborn JT, Harris WH (2000) Acetabular revision arthroplasty using so-called jumbo cementless components: an average 7-year follow-up study. J Arthroplasty 15:8–15
DeLee JG, Charnley J (1976) Radiological demarcation of cemented sockets in total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 121:20–32
Goodman SB, Adler SJ, Fyhrie DP, Schurman DJ (1988) The acetabular teardrop and its relevance to acetabular migration. Clin Orthop Relat Res 236:199–204
Gustke KA (2004) Jumbo cup or high hip center: is bigger better? J Arthroplasty 19:120–123
Hendricks KJ, Harris WH (2006) Revison of failed acetabular components with use of so-called jumbo noncemented components. A concise follow-up of a previous report. J Bone Joint Surg Am 88:559–563
Hodgkinson JP, Shelley P, Wroblewski BM (1988) The correlation between the roentgenographic appearance and operative findings at the bone-cement junction of the socket in Charnley low friction arthroplasties. Clin Orthop Relat Res 228:105–109
Hooten JP Jr, Engh CA Jr, Engh CA (1994) Failure of structural acetabular allografts in cementless revision hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 76:419–422
Jasty M (1998) Jumbo cups and morselized graft. Orthop Clin North Am 29:249–254
Jerosch J, Steinbeck J, Stechmann J, Guth V (1997) Influence of a high hip center on abductor muscle function. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 116:385–389
Kaplan EL, Meier P (1958) Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observation. J Am Stat Assoc 53:457–481
McCollum DE, Gray WJ (1990) Dislocation after total hip arthroplasty. Causes and prevention. Clin Orthop Relat Res 261:159–170
Morag G, Zalzal P, Liberman B, Safir O, Flint M, Gross AE (2005) Outcome of revision hip arthroplasty in patients with a previous total hip replacement for developmental dysplasia of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87:1068–1072
Padgett DE, Kull L, Rosenberg A, Sumner DR, Galante JO (1993) Revision of the acetabular component without cement after total hip arthroplasty. Three to six-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 75:663–573
Paprosky WG, Perona PG, Lawrence JM (1994) Acetabular defect classification and surgical reconstruction in revision arthroplasty. A 6-year follow-up evaluation. J Arthroplasty 9:33–44
Patel JV, Masonis JL, Bourne RB, Rorabeck CH (2003) The fate of cementless jumbo cups in revision hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 18:129–133
Pierchon F, Pasquier G, Cotton A, Fontaine C, Clarisse J, Duquennoy A (1994) Cause of dislocation of total hip arthroplasty. CT study of component alignment. J Bone Joint Surg Br 76:45–48
Russotti GM, Harris WH (1991) Proximal placement of the acetabular component in total hip arthroplasty: a long-term follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 73:587–592
Sporer SM, O’Rourke M, Paprosky WG (2005) The treatment of pelvic discontinuity during acetabular revision. J Arthroplasty 20:79–84
Templeton JE, Callaghan JJ, Goetz DD, Sullivan PM, Johnston RC (2001) Revision of a cemented acetabular component to a cementless acetabular component. A ten to fourteen-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 8:1706–1711
Whaley AL, Berry DJ, Harmsen WS (2001) Extra-large uncemented hemispherical acetabular components for revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 83:1352–1357
Yoder SA, Brand RA, Pedersen Dr, O’Gorman TW (1988) Total hip acetabular composition affects component loosening rates. Clin Orthop Relat Res 228:79–87