Hip international : the journal of clinical and experimental research on hip pathology and therapy · 2024
Long-term outcomes of acetabular impaction grafting with cemented cups and trabecular metal for revision hip arthroplasty: a follow-up study.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Curtin Mark, Russell Shane P, Mirdad Rayyan S, Irwin Shane C, Rowan Fiachra E, Masterson Eric L, Condon Finbarr
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Revision hip arthroplasty in the presence of complex acetabular deficiencies is challenging. Cement, allograft, reconstruction rings and porous trabecular metal now provide versatile options for acetabular fixation and restoration of acetabular offset. We compare acetabular impaction bone grafting (AIBG) and trabecular metal (TM) cups at long-term follow-up.
METHODS: 53 patients who underwent revision hip arthroplasty were retrospectively reviewed from local joint registry data. 36 patients were revised using AIBG and 17 with TM. Median clinical follow-up was 9.57 (2.46-18.72) years and 9.65 (7.22-12.46) years, respectively. 82% of the TM group and 63% of the AIBG group were ⩾ Paprosky 2C. Re-revision was considered failure. Radiographs demonstrating 5 mm of femoral head migration and 5° of acetabular component inclination change were considered loose.
RESULTS: Patients receiving AIBG were younger (68 vs. 74 years) with a longer interval from initial arthroplasty to revision (17 vs. 13 years). Revisions in both groups were indicated most commonly for failed cementing (AIBG 88.9% vs. TM 70.5%). No TM reconstructions underwent re-revision, with only 1 failing at 6.3 years, compared with 9 AIBG re-revisions. When revising for sepsis, 33% of AIBG revisions failed.
CONCLUSIONS: AIBG demonstrated high failure rates at long-term follow-up when compared to TM constructs. We recommend the use of AIBG in small cavitary defects only. We strongly advise against its use in the setting of significant bony defects and for prosthetic joint infection.
METHODS: 53 patients who underwent revision hip arthroplasty were retrospectively reviewed from local joint registry data. 36 patients were revised using AIBG and 17 with TM. Median clinical follow-up was 9.57 (2.46-18.72) years and 9.65 (7.22-12.46) years, respectively. 82% of the TM group and 63% of the AIBG group were ⩾ Paprosky 2C. Re-revision was considered failure. Radiographs demonstrating 5 mm of femoral head migration and 5° of acetabular component inclination change were considered loose.
RESULTS: Patients receiving AIBG were younger (68 vs. 74 years) with a longer interval from initial arthroplasty to revision (17 vs. 13 years). Revisions in both groups were indicated most commonly for failed cementing (AIBG 88.9% vs. TM 70.5%). No TM reconstructions underwent re-revision, with only 1 failing at 6.3 years, compared with 9 AIBG re-revisions. When revising for sepsis, 33% of AIBG revisions failed.
CONCLUSIONS: AIBG demonstrated high failure rates at long-term follow-up when compared to TM constructs. We recommend the use of AIBG in small cavitary defects only. We strongly advise against its use in the setting of significant bony defects and for prosthetic joint infection.