4.5 Article

The use of customized cages in revision total hip arthroplasty for Paprosky type III acetabular bone defects

Journal

INTERNATIONAL ORTHOPAEDICS
Volume 39, Issue 10, Pages 2023-2030

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00264-015-2965-6

Keywords

Total hip arthroplasty; Acetabular bone defect; Revision; Customised cage

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose Revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) is challenging if severe periacetabular bone loss is present. Here we describe a method that uses a customised cage to reconstruct an acetabulum with a massive bone defect. Methods Designed with the aid of the rapid prototyping technique, a customised cage with a hook, crest and flange or braids was made, and then utilized to reconstruct severe compromised acetabulum in revision THA since 2001. Twenty-two patients (23 hips) were included in this study. The mean patient age at the time of surgery was 60.9 years (range, 38-80 years). Three hips had massive acetabular bone defects of Paprosky type IIIA and 20 of type IIIB. The Harris hip score was used to evaluate hip function. Radiographs were taken to evaluate loosening of the cage and resorption of allograft bone. Results The average follow up was 81.6 +/- 24.9 months. The mean Harris hip score improved from 39.6 pre-operatively to 80.9 at the final follow-up. There were no instances of deep infection, severe venous thrombosis, and nerve palsy. One patient who had an intra-operative rupture of the superior acetabular artery was successfully treated using the haemostatic suturing technique. Two patients experienced dislocation at post-operative days four and six, respectively, and both were treated with closed reduction and skin traction for three weeks. Conclusions The present study demonstrates that a customised cage may be a promising option for THA revision of severely compromised acetabula. Extended follow-up is necessary to evaluate the long-term performance of this approach.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available