The bone & joint journal · 2024
Can a reconstruction algorithm in major acetabular bone loss be successful in revision hip arthroplasty?
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Jones Stephen A, Parker Jack, Horner Matthew
Аннотация
AIMS: The aims of this study were to determine the success of a reconstruction algorithm used in major acetabular bone loss, and to further define the indications for custom-made implants in major acetabular bone loss.
METHODS: We reviewed a consecutive series of Paprosky type III acetabular defects treated according to a reconstruction algorithm. IIIA defects were planned to use a superior augment and hemispherical acetabular component. IIIB defects were planned to receive either a hemispherical acetabular component plus augments, a cup-cage reconstruction, or a custom-made implant. We used national digital health records and registry reports to identify any reoperation or re-revision procedure and Oxford Hip Score (OHS) for patient-reported outcomes. Implant survival was determined via Kaplan-Meier analysis.
RESULTS: A total of 105 procedures were carried out in 100 patients (five bilateral) with a mean age of 73 years (42 to 94). In the IIIA defects treated, 72.0% (36 of 50) required a porous metal augment; the remaining 14 patients were treated with a hemispherical acetabular component alone. In the IIIB defects, 63.6% (35 of 55) underwent reconstruction as planned with 20 patients who actually required a hemispherical acetabular component alone. At mean follow-up of 7.6 years, survival was 94.3% (95% confidence interval 97.4 to 88.1) for all-cause revision and the overall dislocation rate was 3.8% (4 of 105). There was no difference observed in survival between type IIIA and type IIIB defects and whether a hemispherical implant alone was used for the reconstruction or not. The mean gain in OHS was 16 points. Custom-made implants were only used in six cases, in patients with either a mega-defect in which the anteroposterior diameter > 80 mm, complex pelvic discontinuity, and massive bone loss in a small pelvis.
CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that a reconstruction algorithm can provide a successful approach to reconstruction in major acetabular bone loss. The use of custom implants has been defined in this series and accounts for < 5% of cases.
METHODS: We reviewed a consecutive series of Paprosky type III acetabular defects treated according to a reconstruction algorithm. IIIA defects were planned to use a superior augment and hemispherical acetabular component. IIIB defects were planned to receive either a hemispherical acetabular component plus augments, a cup-cage reconstruction, or a custom-made implant. We used national digital health records and registry reports to identify any reoperation or re-revision procedure and Oxford Hip Score (OHS) for patient-reported outcomes. Implant survival was determined via Kaplan-Meier analysis.
RESULTS: A total of 105 procedures were carried out in 100 patients (five bilateral) with a mean age of 73 years (42 to 94). In the IIIA defects treated, 72.0% (36 of 50) required a porous metal augment; the remaining 14 patients were treated with a hemispherical acetabular component alone. In the IIIB defects, 63.6% (35 of 55) underwent reconstruction as planned with 20 patients who actually required a hemispherical acetabular component alone. At mean follow-up of 7.6 years, survival was 94.3% (95% confidence interval 97.4 to 88.1) for all-cause revision and the overall dislocation rate was 3.8% (4 of 105). There was no difference observed in survival between type IIIA and type IIIB defects and whether a hemispherical implant alone was used for the reconstruction or not. The mean gain in OHS was 16 points. Custom-made implants were only used in six cases, in patients with either a mega-defect in which the anteroposterior diameter > 80 mm, complex pelvic discontinuity, and massive bone loss in a small pelvis.
CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that a reconstruction algorithm can provide a successful approach to reconstruction in major acetabular bone loss. The use of custom implants has been defined in this series and accounts for < 5% of cases.