JBJS 2005 Managing Bone Loss in Acetabular Revision

This is an enhanced PDF from The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery

The PDF of the article you requested follows this cover page.

Managing Bone Loss in Acetabular Revision

Scott M. Sporer, Wayne G. Paprosky and Michael O'Rourke J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:1620-1630.

This information is current as of March 17, 2009

Reprints and Permissions Click here to order reprints or request permission to use material from this article, or locate the article citation on jbjs.org and click on the [Reprints and Permissions] link. Publisher Information The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 20 Pickering Street, Needham, MA 02492-3157 www.jbjs.org 

THE JOURNAL OF BONE & JOINT SURGERY · JBJS.ORG MANAGING BONE LOSS IN VOLUME 87-A · NUMBER 7 · JULY 2005 ACETABULAR REVISION

Managing Bone Loss in Acetabular Revision BY SCOTT M. SPORER, MD, WAYNE G. PAPROSKY, MD, AND MICHAEL O’ROURKE, MD An Instructional Course Lecture, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons

Revision of cemented acetabular com- of reconstruction that achieves stability tabular components had a 14% rate of ponents is most commonly performed of the acetabular component through a revision for aseptic loosening and a because of aseptic loosening with mi- mechanical construct without the need 33% prevalence of radiographic evi- gration of the component. The most for osseointegration between the ace- dence of aseptic loosening1,2. Della Valle challenging aspect of acetabular revi- tabular shell and the host bone. Bio- et al., in a study of the experience with sion is the management of bone loss logic fixation refers to any surgical cementless acetabular revision at the compromising implant fixation and option that requires direct contact Rush University Medical Center, found stability. The severity of bone loss can with host bone and osseointegration aseptic loosening in two of 138 patients be pronounced, as a result of asymp- into the acetabular shell in order to followed for a mean of fifteen years, tomatic osteolysis and stress-shielding, provide long-term fixation. Nonbio- with revision (for any reason) reported prior to migration of cementless com- logic fixation options include cement- in nineteen of the 138 patients3. In a ponents. This bone loss is a common ing of a polyethylene cup, use of a study of the results of cementless revi- condition that is expected to become superior structural allograft and a ce- sions performed by Harris, Hallstrom more common in the future. mented polyethylene cup with or with- et al. reported a rate of aseptic loosen- The prevalence of revision hip ar- out an antiprotrusio cage, impaction ing of 11% (thirteen of 122) and a rate throplasty is 18% in the United States grafting with or without an antipro- of revision because of aseptic loosening and 8% in the Swedish registry. The in- trusio cage, and application of a total of 4% (five of 122)4. dications for acetabular revision in- acetabular allograft. Biologic fixation Reliable and durable fixation of clude symptomatic aseptic loosening, options include use of a hemispherical cementless acetabular components re- failure of fixation, infection, wear, os- uncemented cup at the anatomic hip quires intimate contact between the teolysis, and instability. Revision may center or a high hip center (>2 cm su- implant and viable bone as well as me- be indicated for an asymptomatic pa- perior to the native hip center), a jumbo chanical stability (motion of less than tient who has progressive osteolysis, cup (66 to 80 mm), an oblong cup, an 40 to 50 µm). Bone loss can compro- severe wear, or bone loss that could uncemented hemispherical cup sup- mise both of these prerequisites for suc- compromise a future reconstruction. ported by structural allograft, and a cessful use of cementless implants. The Contraindications for revision of the modular cementless implant system. amount of host bone required to pro- acetabular component include severe As the outcomes of acetabular re- vide durable fixation is not known. Al- bone loss precluding allograft fixation vision have been better with cementless though it is difficult to measure the or implant fixation, uncontrolled infec- fixation than they have been with ce- amount of bone supporting an implant, tion, or medical comorbidities that pre- ment fixation, cementless fixation has most surgeons believe that 50% to 60% clude surgery. become the preferred method for the is necessary. This value was derived majority of acetabular revisions. Tem- from the literature and is a measure of Options for Acetabular Revision pleton et al.1 and Gaffey et al.2 reported the coverage of the acetabular compo- Several options, including both non- no cases of aseptic loosening of unce- nent in the coronal plane as seen on biologic and biologic fixation, are mented Harris-Galante-I components an anteroposterior radiograph. How- available for acetabular revision. Non- used for revisions of cemented compo- ever, the support of an implant is geo- biologic fixation refers to any method nents, whereas cemented revision ace- metrically more complex than can be 

THE JOURNAL OF BONE & JOINT SURGERY · JBJS.ORG MANAGING BONE LOSS IN VOLUME 87-A · NUMBER 7 · JULY 2005 ACETABULAR REVISION determined on a two-dimensional ra- to the classification is determining the involvement of the posterior column. diograph alone. The location of the ability of the remaining host bone to The amount of superior migration is remaining supportive bone probably provide initial stability to a hemispheri- measured as the distance in millimeters has a more important role in provid- cal cementless acetabular component (adjusted for magnification) relative to ing durable fixation than does the until ingrowth occurs. Intraoperative the superior obturator line. quantity of bone. Finally, the percent- decisions are based on the findings Ischial osteolysis indicates bone age of bone necessary to support the when trial components are used. The loss from the inferior aspect of the pos- implant probably decreases as the im- amount of rim that remains deter- terior column, including the posterior plant size increases because of the in- mines the stability of the trial implant wall. The amount of ischial osteolysis creased surface area. and is one of the variables that identifies is quantified by measuring the distance the type of acetabular defect. A Type-I from the most inferior extent of the Inherent Stability defect has an undistorted rim; a Type-II lytic area to the superior obturator line. Although there are reports of the suc- defect, a distorted but intact rim with Teardrop osteolysis indicates cessful use of uncemented cups in revi- adequate remaining bone to support a bone loss from the inferior and medial sion surgery without the achievement hemispherical cementless implant; and aspect of the acetabulum, including the of an initial press-fit1,3, we believe that it a Type-III defect, a non-supportive rim. inferior aspect of the anterior column, is necessary to achieve inherent stabil- the lateral aspect of the pubis, and the ity of the implant. Trial components are Radiographic Correlation medial wall. Moderate osteolysis in- used to accomplish this goal and to as- Preoperative findings on the anteropos- cludes partial destruction of the struc- sess the remaining bone stock properly. terior radiograph of the pelvis are used ture with maintenance of the medial A trial implant can have full inherent to predict the type of defect and allow limb of the teardrop. Severe involve- stability, partial inherent stability, or no the surgeon to plan for the acetabular ment means complete obliteration of inherent stability. A trial component reconstruction accordingly. The four the teardrop. with full inherent stability will not be criteria that are important to assess on Medial migration of the com- displaced by pushing on its rim or by the preoperative radiograph include: ponent relative to the Kohler line trial reduction. A trial component with (1) superior migration of the hip center, represents a deficiency of the anterior partial inherent stability will maintain (2) ischial osteolysis, (3) teardrop os- column. The Kohler line is defined as its position while the inserter is re- teolysis, and (4) position of the implant a line connecting the most lateral aspect moved, but it will be displaced by load- relative to the Kohler line. of the pelvic brim and the most lateral ing of its rim and by trial reduction. Superior migration of the hip aspect of the obturator foramen on an Finally, when a trial component has no center represents bone loss in the ace- anteroposterior radiograph of the pelvis. inherent stability, support by host bone tabular dome involving the anterior and The medial aspect of the implant is lat- is inadequate to maintain placement of posterior columns. Superior and medial eral to the Kohler line with Grade-1 the component in the desired location migration indicates a greater involve- migration and medial to the line with once the inserter is removed. ment of the anterior column. Superior Grade-3 migration. With Grade 2, there and lateral migration indicates a greater is migration to the Kohler line or slight Classification and Decision-Making AAOS Classification The AAOS (American Academy of Or- thopaedic Surgeons) classification of Fig. 1 bone defects, described by D’Antonio Type-I acetabular defect. Note et al.5,6, identifies the pattern and loca- that the rim remains supportive tion of bone loss but does not quantify and will provide full stability for a the defect. The bone loss is classified as hemispherical component. contained, segmental, combined contained and segmental, pelvic discontinuity, and ankylosis. This is the most commonly used classification in the literature.

Paprosky Classification The classification system that we use is based on the severity of bone loss and the ability to obtain cementless fixation for a given bone loss pattern7. The key 

THE JOURNAL OF BONE & JOINT SURGERY · JBJS.ORG MANAGING BONE LOSS IN VOLUME 87-A · NUMBER 7 · JULY 2005 ACETABULAR REVISION

teardrop (ischial osteolysis extending <7 mm distal to the obturator line). Fig. 2-A Type-IIA defect: The pattern of Type-II acetabular defect. Note the bone loss is superior and medial, allow- rim defect. The remaining host ing migration of the failed component bone is supportive and will provide into a cavitary defect medial to the full stability for a hemispherical thinned intact superior rim. In the ma- component. jority of patients, the defect is treated with particulate allograft because the defect is contained. The remaining superior rim provides a buttress for con- tainment of the allograft. Type-IIB defect: Less than one- third of the circumference of the superior rim is deficient, and the defect is not contained. The remaining anterior and posterior rims and columns can support an implant. Allograft is used to restore bone stock and not to support the implant. The defect is segmental, and a femoral head allograft may be chosen. The majority of reconstructions remodeling of the iliopubic and iliois- entirely by host bone. The anterior and are done without grafting of the seg- chial lines without a break in continuity. posterior columns remain intact and mental defect. supportive. The hip center can be ele- Type-IIC defect: There is a me- Type-I Defect vated as much as 1.5 cm to achieve su- dial wall defect and migration of the With a Type-I defect, the acetabular perior contact and support. acetabular component medial to the rim is intact and supportive without On the preoperative radiograph Kohler line (Fig. 2-B). The rim of the distortion (Fig. 1). The acetabulum is of a Type-II defect, the superior migra- acetabulum is intact and will support a hemispherical, and there may be small tion of the hip center is <3 cm from the hemispherical component. Reconstruc- focal areas of contained bone loss (ce- superior obturator line and there is no tion of these defects is similar to the ment anchor sites). The anterior and substantial osteolysis of the ischium or treatment of protrusio acetabuli in the posterior columns are intact. A hemispherical cementless implant is almost completely supported by native bone and has full inherent stability. The preoperative radiograph shows no migration of the component and no evidence of osteolysis in the ischium or teardrop, and the Kohler line has not been violated (the medialmost aspect of the component is lateral to the Kohler line).

Type-II Defect In a Type-II defect, the acetabulum is distorted but there is adequate host bone to support a cementless acetabular component (Fig. 2-A). The trial component has full inherent stability. The distortion may be superior and lateral, superior and medial, or directly medial. At least 50% of the surface area of the component is in contact with host bone for potential ingrowth, and good Fig. 2-B mechanical support can be provided Preoperative radiograph of a Type-IIC acetabular defect. Note the violation of the Kohler line. 

THE JOURNAL OF BONE & JOINT SURGERY · JBJS.ORG MANAGING BONE LOSS IN VOLUME 87-A · NUMBER 7 · JULY 2005 ACETABULAR REVISION

setting of a primary arthroplasty. Se- quentially larger reamers are used until the acetabular rim is engaged. Particu- Fig. 3-A Type-III acetabular defect. The late bone graft can be placed medially remaining host bone is not in order to lateralize the hip center of rotation back to its anatomic position. supportive and will not provide full stability for a hemispheri- Type-III Defect cal component. The remaining acetabular rim in a Type-III defect will not provide adequate initial component stability to achieve reliable biologic fixation (Fig. 3-A). The trial implant lacks full in- trinsic stability. The use of structural allograft is an option to restore the center of rotation to the proper anatomic location and to provide mechanical stability for the implant. Type-IIIA defect: There is adequate host bone in contact with the ingrowth surface of the implant to obtain durable biologic fixation (Fig. 3-B)—i.e., more than 40% to 60% of the surface area of the cementless cup is in contact with host bone. The trial component has partial inherent mechanical stability. Support of the im-

Fig. 3-B Fig. 3-C Fig. 3-B Preoperative radiograph of a Type-IIIA acetabular defect. Note the superior-lateral migration and loss of the superior dome. Fig. 3-C Preop- erative radiograph of a Type-IIIB acetabular defect. Note the superior-medial migration with disruption of the Kohler line. 

THE JOURNAL OF BONE & JOINT SURGERY · JBJS.ORG MANAGING BONE LOSS IN VOLUME 87-A · NUMBER 7 · JULY 2005 ACETABULAR REVISION plant with a structural augment or tor line, the surgeon determines whether component has no inherent stability, allograft is necessary in the short term full inherent stability can be achieved the defect is classified as Type IIIB. to provide initial stability and thus al- with a trial component. If it can, the de- When pelvic discontinuity has been low ingrowth into the areas of the im- fect is classified as Type I or Type II, and ruled out, the options for treatment of plant that are in contact with the host a hemispherical cementless implant is such defects include (1) nonbiologic bone. The defect involves more than utilized. If there is migration medial to fixation with an impaction allograft one-third but not more than one-half the Kohler line, the defect is classified as supported with a cage or with a struc- of the circumference and usually is Type IIC and the rim will support the tural allograft (an acetabular allograft located between the 10 o’clock and hemispherical implant. or a distal femoral allograft) supported 2 o’clock positions. Preoperative radio- When the hip center has migrated with a cage and (2) biologic fixation graphs show superior and lateral migra- >3 cm superior to the superior obtura- with a modular trabecular metal sys- tion of the component <3 cm above the tor line or the surgeon is unable to tem or a custom triflanged implant. obturator line (with adjustment for achieve full inherent stability of the In the presence of pelvic discon- magnification). Ischial lysis is mild to hemispherical trial component, the tinuity, we determine intraoperatively moderate, extending <15 mm inferior defect is classified as Type III. If a trial whether the discontinuity appears to be to the obturator line. There is partial component has partial inherent stabil- acute, with the potential for healing, or destruction of the teardrop, but the ity, there is generally enough contact chronic, without the potential for heal- medial limb of the teardrop usually is with host bone to support ingrowth ing. If healing is possible, we use a com- present. The component is at or lateral and therefore the defect is Type IIIA. pression plate across the dissociation as to the Kohler line, and the ilioischial Type-IIIA defects usually have an ob- well as one of the reconstructive ap- and iliopubic lines are intact. long shape, but occasionally they are proaches described for a Type-IIIB de- Type-IIIB defect: Host bone is in spherical. If the defect is spherical, a fect above. When there is no potential contact with <40% of the ingrowth sur- jumbo cup may be appropriate. With for healing, we distract the discontinuity face of the implant. Inherent stability is oblong remodeling of the host acetabu- and insert bone graft into the defect. not achievable with a trial implant. The lum, the options include a structural The initial stability of the structural defect involves more than half of the distal femoral graft with a cementless graft or the modular reconstruction is circumference of the rim, and it usu- hemispherical cup, a modular trabec- greatly enhanced by distraction (as op- ally extends from the 9 o’clock to the ular metal augment with a hemi- posed to compression, with which there 5 o’clock position (Fig. 3-C). Patients spherical cup, or a high-hip-center is little chance for the host bone to bring with a Type-IIIB defect are at high risk hemispherical cup. The former two op- about healing of the discontinuity). for occult pelvic discontinuity, and this tions are appropriate when restoration possibility must be ruled out at the time of an anatomic hip center is desired. Techniques of reconstruction. Preoperative radio- With both the structural distal femoral General Principles graphs show extensive ischial osteolysis graft and the modular augment, the Preoperative planning based on the (extending >15 mm distal to the supe- goal is to provide support to a hemi- aforementioned classification system is rior obturator line), complete destruc- spherical implant that has partial inher- critical so that the appropriate grafting tion of the teardrop, migration medial ent stability until there is adequate material, tools for implant removal, and to the Kohler line, and migration >3 cm supportive ingrowth into the cup. The components are available at the time of superior to the obturator line. With a advantages of a distal femoral allograft surgery. If there has been extensive me- Type-IIIB defect, the failed acetabular are the good results that have been seen dial migration, imaging (angiography component migrates superiorly and with longer follow-up and the restora- or computed tomography scanning medially, in contrast to the migration tion of bone for future reconstruction if with intravascular infusion of contrast with the Type-IIIA defect, which is su- necessary. The potential advantages of a medium) and possibly intrapelvic mo- perior and lateral. modular cup-and-augment system in- bilization of vascular structures should clude less stripping of the ilium and less be considered. Algorithmic Approach to mobilization of the abductors, a techni- The patient must be positioned Decision-Making cally easier and faster procedure, and carefully, with particular attention paid Our algorithmic approach to revision the fact that the augment does not have to the orientation of the pelvis and of the acetabulum is shown in Figure 4. the potential for resorption. The disad- torso relative to the floor, as internal We use a posterolateral approach to the vantages of this method include its landmarks often are distorted in the set- hip for all acetabular revisions. The ini- unknown long-term durability, the ting of revision surgery. A posterolateral tial decision regarding how to proceed potential for debris generation at the approach is used. Extensile exposures with the operation depends on the supe- interface, the potential for fatigue fail- often are necessary, with the incision rior migration of the hip center prior to ure, and the inability to restore bone extending toward the posterior superior the revision. If the hip center has not mi- stock for future revisions. iliac spine. The plane between the ilio- grated >3 cm above the superior obtura- When the hemispherical trial tibial band and the underlying vastus 

THE JOURNAL OF BONE & JOINT SURGERY · JBJS.ORG MANAGING BONE LOSS IN VOLUME 87-A · NUMBER 7 · JULY 2005 ACETABULAR REVISION lateralis and the abductors (often fied and the abductors are mobilized subperiosteally and is extended to the scarred to the iliotibial band) is redevel- anteriorly. We do not routinely expose superior aspect of the acetabulum and oped. After the borders of the gluteus the sciatic nerve unless dissection then continued distally along the proxi- medius and gluteus minimus have been through heterotopic ossification is nec- mal part of the femur in a subperiosteal identified, the plane between the glu- essary. A posterior capsular flap is de- fashion. Intraoperative evaluations (a teus minimus and the capsule is identi- veloped off of the greater trochanter cell count and analysis of frozen sec-

Fig. 4 Algorithmic approach to acetabular revision. 

THE JOURNAL OF BONE & JOINT SURGERY · JBJS.ORG MANAGING BONE LOSS IN VOLUME 87-A · NUMBER 7 · JULY 2005 ACETABULAR REVISION

tein level and on the findings of the analysis of frozen sections. The posterior flap is retracted, and an anterior capsulectomy is done. If the femoral component is to be retained, an anterior pouch is developed for placement of the retained component during retraction. The superior aspect of the ilium and the posterior column are dissected in the subperiosteal plane to obtain the necessary exposure. An extended trochanteric osteotomy may be needed, depending on the visualization and the anticipated reconstruction of the femur. After the removal of the existing components, a systematic débridement of granulation tissue and interface membrane is car- ried out to assess the entire remaining Fig. 5-A acetabular bone stock and to rule out Figs. 5-A, 5-B, and 5-C The surgical technique used to the possibility of a pelvic discontinuity. reconstruct a Type-IIIA acetabular defect with a distal femoral allograft. (Reprinted from: Sporer SM, O’Rourke M, Chong P, Type-IIC Defects Paprosky WG. The use of structural distal femoral allografts for In the majority of Type-IIC defects, acetabular reconstruction. Average ten-year follow-up. J Bone Joint particulate graft is placed medially. If Surg Am. 2005;87:761.) Fig. 5-A Allograft bone is secured to the the medial membrane is not a sufficient superior dome with multiple 6.5-mm cancellous screws. buttress for the particulate graft, a femoral head cut into a wafer, with the diameter of the wafer greater than the tions) are done to rule out infection. We >10,000/µL (10.0 × 109/L) indicates the diameter of the medial bone defect, can assume that a white blood-cell count of presence of an infection. When the cell be used as a buttress for the particulate <3000/µL (3.0 × 109/L) indicates the ab- count is between 3000 and 10,000, we graft. Use of acetabular reamers in re- sence of infection and a count of base our decision on the C-reactive pro- verse impacts the cancellous allograft

Fig. 5-B Fig. 5-C Fig. 5-B Allograft is reamed until the host anterior and posterior columns are engaged. Fig. 5-C A cementless hemispherical shell is inserted and is secured with multiple screws. 

THE JOURNAL OF BONE & JOINT SURGERY · JBJS.ORG MANAGING BONE LOSS IN VOLUME 87-A · NUMBER 7 · JULY 2005 ACETABULAR REVISION medially and recreates the hemispheri- allograft begins with trimming of the the newly sculpted acetabular cavity and cal shape of the socket. As more cancel- epicondyles so that the medial-to-lateral fixed with multiple screws for adjunctive lous allograft is added medially, the dimension of the allograft matches the fixation (Figs. 5-A, 5-B, and 5-C). reamer begins to translate laterally and diameter of the acetabular cavity. A fe- to catch on the rim. The reamers (used male reamer that is about 1 to 2 mm Modular Trabecular Metal System in reverse) disengage from the reamer larger than the acetabular cavity is then Treatment of a Type-IIIA defect with drive shaft as they come into contact used to ream the distal aspect of the al- a modular trabecular metal system with the host bone rim. At this point, lograft in slight flexion, to avoid notch- begins with use of acetabular reamers sufficient graft has been placed medially. ing of the anterior cortex of the graft to identify the desired location for the and so that the reamed condyles will be cup placement and to determine the Type-IIIA Defects directed into the acetabular cavity. The location of all remaining supportive Distal Femoral Structural metaphyseal portion of the allograft is host bone (which is usually anterior- Allograft with an Uncemented then cut in the coronal plane to create superior and posterior-inferior). Pro- Acetabular Component the shape of the number 7, with the an- gressive reaming is performed to engage To optimize the outcome, an appropriate terior aspect of the metadiaphyseal the bone of the anterior and posterior graft must be selected to match the me- bone left in continuity with the distal columns in order to achieve partial in- chanical demands of the proposed re- condyles. The superior aspect of the al- herent stability of the trial acetabular construction. We do not use a femoral lograft (the anterior cortex) is generally component. With the trial component head allograft when the graft is to serve a approximately 5 to 6 cm in length. in the appropriate amount of version structurally supportive role. Instead, we The angle between the condyles and abduction, the posterior-superior employ a fresh-frozen distal femoral or and the anterior cortex on the posterior augment is placed against the host proximal tibial allograft. The trabecular aspect of the allograft is contoured with bone. The augment can be placed in patterns of the graft are oriented parallel a burr to optimize the contact between any position or orientation to improve to the direction of load to optimize stress the allograft and the host ilium. If a the initial stability, and the bone or the transfer. The graft is contoured to maxi- ledge of bone is present between the augment can be contoured with a barrel mize the contact surface area between lateral margin of the ilium and the burr to optimize the surface contact it and the host bone, to optimize the depth of the acetabular cavity at the site area. With the trial component in place, chance of union. The allograft should of the defect, the allograft should be cut the augment is secured to the host bone be fixed to the host bone with 6.5-mm at a more acute angle. This “tongue-in- with screws. The augment is then screws oriented parallel with one an- groove” effect will provide tremendous packed with bone graft, leaving the other in the direction of loading, with- stability at the graft-host junction. portion facing the cup exposed. Poly- out interfering with placement or The superior limb of the allograft methylmethacrylate cement is placed fixation of the component. If there is is contoured to the lateral aspect of the directly onto the trabecular metal re- pelvic discontinuity, fixation with a pos- ilium and is secured provisionally with vision cup but only in the areas mating terior column plate should be performed Steinmann pins. It is important to tap with the augment. The acetabular before proceeding with the allografting. the allograft screw-holes, in order to component is then firmly impacted to The fixation of the acetabular compo- minimize the risk of fracture, before achieve a press-fit against the host bone. nent to the host bone-allograft recon- placing four parallel 6.5-mm cancellous We recommend the placement of multi- struction is separate from the fixation screws with washers. The screws should ple screws for initial fixation. If the liner of the allograft to the host bone. be oriented obliquely into the ilium in is cemented, one should consider plac- The goal of acetabular recon- the direction of loading to compress the ing bone wax into the end of the screws struction with the use of a structural graft against the remaining ilium. The to facilitate removal if needed. allograft is to obtain a stable construct acetabular cavity then can be reamed with the hip center of rotation posi- to contour the portion of the graft that Type-IIIB Defects tioned at the level of the native ace- will be in contact with the component. Total Acetabular Transplant with a Cage tabulum. The desired hip center is Smaller reamers initially are used, and Acetabular reamers are used to size the identified, and acetabular reamers are then the reamers are sequentially in- acetabular cavity and to identify the lo- used to size and shape the acetabulum creased in size to obtain the dimensions cation of all remaining bone to support for a hemispherical cementless im- of the desired acetabular cavity. Care the allograft. The ledge of bone on the plant. After it is ascertained that ade- must be taken to prevent removal of ad- superior aspect of the ilium that will quate host bone is available to come ditional host bone or inadequate ream- abut against the allograft should be into contact with the implant, a trial ing of the allograft that can cause failure identified. The acetabulum of the al- component is placed to determine ar- of contact between the remaining host lograft is reamed on the back table, with eas of contact, inherent stability, and bone and the component. Remaining care taken not to weaken it by excessive the location of segmental loss. voids are filled with particulate allograft, reaming. A cage is sized to the allograft Preparation of the distal femoral and a cementless cup is impacted into prior to placement. The allograft hemi- 

THE JOURNAL OF BONE & JOINT SURGERY · JBJS.ORG MANAGING BONE LOSS IN VOLUME 87-A · NUMBER 7 · JULY 2005 ACETABULAR REVISION

TABLE I Clinical Results of Cementless Acetabular Revision

Author Year No. of Hips Mean Duration (Range) of Follow-up (yr) Results Templeton et al.1 2001 61 12.9 (11.5-14.3) 3.5% radiographically loose Leopold et al.9 1999 138 10.5 (7-14) 1.8% radiographically loose Silverton et al.10 1995 138 8.3 (7-11) 0.7% failure Garcia-Cimbrelo11 1999 65 8.3 (6-11) 10.8% failure; 28% loose Whaley et al.12 2001 89 7.2 (5-11.3) 4.5% failure Lachiewicz and Poon13 1998 57 7 (5-12) No failures Dearborn and Harris14 2000 24 7 (5-10.3) No failures Weber et al.15 1996 61 6.5 (5-8) 1.6% radiographically loose Chareancholvanich et al.16 1999 40 8 (5-11) 12.5% failure Paprosky et al.7 1994 147 5.7 (3-9) 4.1% failure Lachiewicz and Hussamy17 1994 60 5 (2-8) No failures Tanzer et al.18 1992 140 3.7 (2-5.5) 1.4% failure Padgett et al.19 1993 138 3.6 (3-6) No failures Moskal et al.20 1997 32 4.8 (3-9.5) 6.3% failure Jasty21 1998 19 10 (8-11) No failures due to loosening pelvis is cut in a curvilinear fashion threaded screws with washers directed pattern. Augments are often placed on from the greater sciatic notch to the an- obliquely into the ilium from both the the medial aspect of the ilium or they terior superior iliac spine to maintain intra-articular and the lateral iliac as- may be stacked. It is more common to a portion of the ilium attached to the pects of the graft. A pelvic reconstruc- use the augments with the wide base acetabulum. The pubic and ischial portion plate is then contoured to the placed laterally and the apex placed me- tions of the allograft are cut distal to posterior column, ideally with three dially, which is the opposite of how the the confluence of the acetabulum with screws in the native ilium and ischium. augments are often used in Type-IIIA enough length to accommodate the in- It is recommended that a cage, secured defects. The revision cup will have direct ferior defects. One should avoid leaving with cage-host bone screws as well as contact with the augments, which will be excessive inferior bone on the allograft cage-allograft bone screws, be used to necessary in order to achieve a press-fit. that prevents optimal medialization of protect all transplants. If possible, the As is done for a Type-IIIA defect, the the inferior aspect of the graft as this inferior flange of the cage is inserted augments are initially secured to the host can result in vertical cup placement and into a slot in the ischium for fixation. bone with the use of multiple screws. lateralization of the hip center. Medial- A metal shell or a polyethylene liner is Portions of the augments may need to ization of the hip center is desired. then cemented into the cage-allograft be removed with a burr or a reamer in A female reamer, 1 to 2 mm larger composite, with the surgeon avoiding order to optimize the surface area con- than the acetabular reamer used to size the tendency to place the component in tact between them and the revision shell. the acetabulum, can be used to mark a vertical and/or retroverted position. Particulate bone graft is then placed into and shape the medial aspect of the graft any remaining cavities before the hemi- to fit the defect. A groove is made in the Modular Trabecular Metal System spherical revision shell is impacted into superior aspect of the ilium of the al- When a Type-IIIB defect is treated with a place. As is done for a Type-IIIA defect, lograft to correspond to the ledge of modular trabecular metal system, the ac- the interfaces between the revision shell bone along the superior aspect of the etabular defect is sized with reamers in and the augments are cemented. (These native acetabulum. This tongue-and- the desired location to find the dimen- interfaces should be in compression.) groove junction provides a stable but- sion of the cavity until two points of fixa- Multiple screw fixation is used through tress between the host and the allograft. tion are achieved (anterior to posterior, the revision shell. A burr is used to debulk the inner table anterior-inferior to posterior-inferior, or of the ilium on the allograft and to posterior-superior to anterior-inferior). Outcomes of Revision maintain a shelf distally that will fill the Augments are used to decrease acetabu- Several authors have reported durable acetabular defect. The allograft should lar volume and to restore a rim to sup- results at a minimum of ten years fol- be press-fit and then secured with port a revision cup. The location and lowing acetabular revision with the use Steinmann pins provisionally. It is then orientation of the augments are highly of a hemispherical cementless socket fixed with four 6.5-mm partially variable, depending on the bone-loss (Table I). Because of these predictable 

THE JOURNAL OF BONE & JOINT SURGERY · JBJS.ORG MANAGING BONE LOSS IN VOLUME 87-A · NUMBER 7 · JULY 2005 ACETABULAR REVISION clinical results, hemispherical cement- (without a cage) has had poor clinical of severe bone loss. The algorithmic less sockets are now used for almost all results. The senior one of us (W.G.P.) approach that we outlined allows the Type-I and II acetabular defects. Type- followed sixteen patients for a mini- surgeon to predict the findings in the IIIA acetabular defects can be treated mum of eight years (average, ten years) operating room, plan the treatment of with a distal femoral allograft, a bilobed and found that six hips were function- expected bone loss patterns, and make implant, or a trabecular metal acetabu- ing without loosening, six had been re- appropriate judgments regarding the lar component with a superiorly placed vised because of aseptic loosening at reconstructive technique that will trabecular metal augment. The long- an average of 2.9 years, and an addi- achieve the best possible results. Our term clinical results of acetabular tional four had radiographic evidence preference is to achieve cementless fixa- reconstruction with the use of a tra- of loosening. Because of these poor re- tion when possible and to use alterna- becular metal system are currently sults following use of an unsupported tive solutions when initial stability unknown. However, trabecular metal structural allograft, we began to use re- cannot be obtained. appears to allow extensive bone in- construction cages. At two to eight growth and is associated with high ini- years following use of such a cage in tial frictional resistance. forty-eight hips with a Type-III defect, Scott M. Sporer, MD The midterm results of revisions twenty hips were functioning without Wayne G. Paprosky, MD with bilobed acetabular components loosening, nine had been revised be- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush have been disappointing. These im- cause of aseptic loosening, and an addi- University Medical Center, 25 North Winfield plants were designed to lower the hip tional nine had radiographic evidence Road, Winfield, IL 60190. E-mail address for center of rotation and to obtain fixa- of loosening. S.M. Sporer: [email protected] tion, both in the true acetabulum and The poor clinical results ob- in the ilium. Chen et al. reported a 24% served after treatment of Type-IIIB de- Michael O’Rourke, MD The University of Iowa, 200 Hawkins Drive, failure rate in thirty-seven hips followed fects recently prompted us to use a Iowa City, IA 52242 for an average of forty-one months trabecular metal acetabular component postoperatively8. In contrast, the mid- with one or two augments in the major- The authors did not receive grants or outside term results of revisions with a distal ity of Type-IIIB cases. Modular trabec- funding in support of their research or prepa- femoral allograft and a hemispherical ular metal revision systems have not ration of this manuscript. One or more of the cementless acetabular component have been used long enough for us to report authors received payments or other benefits or been acceptable. After a minimum of follow-up results at the present time; a commitment or agreement to provide such benefits from a commercial entity (Zimmer). seven years and an average of ten years however, we are encouraged by the early Zimmer has contributed to a research fund un- of follow-up of twenty-two hips, the outcomes. related to this project. senior one of us (W.G.P.) found that seventeen hips were functioning well Overview Printed with permission of the American without loosening and only four had In conclusion, the increasing prevalence Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. This arti- been revised (at an average of 5.5 years of arthroplasties and the younger age cle, as well as other lectures presented at the and greater life expectancy of the pa- Academy’s Annual Meeting, will be available in postoperatively). February 2006 in Instructional Course Lectures, Treatment of Type-IIIB acetabu- tients who receive them promises a con- Volume 55. The complete volume can be or- lar defects with an acetabular transplant tinued need for solutions for patients dered online at www.aaos.org, or by calling and a cemented acetabular component requiring acetabular revision in the face 800-626-6726 (8 A.M.-5 P.M., Central time).

References

1. Templeton JE, Callaghan JJ, Goetz DD, Sullivan 5. D’Antonio JA. Periprosthetic bone loss of the ace- MB, Quigley LR, Galante JO. Cementless acetabular PM, Johnston RC. Revision of a cemented acetabu- tabulum. Classification and management. Orthop revision. Evaluation at an average of 10.5 years. lar component to a cementless acetabular compo- Clin North Am. 1992;23:279-90. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999;369:179-86. nent. A ten to fourteen-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83:1706-11. 6. D’Antonio JA, Capello WN, Borden LS, Bargar WL, 10. Silverton CD, Rosenberg AG, Sheinkop MB, Bierbaum BF, Boettcher WG, Steinberg ME, Stulberg Kull LR, Galante JO. Revision total hip arthroplasty 2. Gaffey JL, Callaghan JJ, Pedersen DR, Goetz DD, SD, Wedge JH. Classification and management of ac- using a cementless acetabular component. Tech- Sullivan PM, Johnston RC. Cementless acetabular fix- etabular abnormalities in total hip arthroplasty. Clin nique and results. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1995; ation at fifteen years. A comparison with the same Orthop Relat Res. 1989;243:126-37. 319:201-8. surgeon’s results following acetabular fixation with cement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86:257-61. 7. Paprosky WG, Perona PG, Lawrence JM. Acetabu- 11. Garcia-Cimbrelo E. Porous-coated cementless lar defect classification and surgical reconstruction acetabular cups in revision surgery: a 6- to 11-year 3. Della Valle CJ, Berger RA, Rosenberg AG, Galante in revision arthroplasty. A 6-year follow-up evalua- follow-up study. J Arthroplasty. 1999;14:397-406. JO. Cementless acetabular reconstruction in revi- tion. J Arthroplasty. 1994;9:33-44. sion total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 12. Whaley AL, Berry DJ, Harmsen WS. Extra-large 2004;420:96-100. 8. Chen WM, Engh CA Jr, Hopper RH Jr, McAuley JP, uncemented hemispherical acetabular components Engh CA. Acetabular revision with use of a bilobed for revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg 4. Hallstrom BR, Golladay GJ, Vittetoe DA, Harris component inserted without cement in patients who Am. 2001;83:1352-7. WH. Cementless acetabular revision with the Harris- have acetabular bone-stock deficiency. J Bone Joint Galante porous prosthesis. Results after a mini- Surg Am. 2000;82:197-206. 13. Lachiewicz PF, Poon ED. Revision of a total hip mum of ten years of follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg arthroplasty with a Harris-Galante porous-coated Am. 2004;86:1007-11. 9. Leopold SS, Rosenberg AG, Bhatt RD, Sheinkop acetabular component inserted without cement. 

THE JOURNAL OF BONE & JOINT SURGERY · JBJS.ORG MANAGING BONE LOSS IN VOLUME 87-A · NUMBER 7 · JULY 2005 ACETABULAR REVISION

A follow-up note on the results at five to twelve 16. Chareancholvanich K, Tanchuling A, Seki T, 19. Padgett DE, Kull L, Rosenberg A, Sumner DR, years. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998;80:980-4. Gustilo RB. Cementless acetabular revision for Galante JO. Revision of the acetabular component aseptic failure of cemented hip arthroplasty. Clin without cement after total hip arthroplasty. Three 14. Dearborn JT, Harris WH. Acetabular revision Orthop Relat Res. 1999;361:140-9. to six-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993; arthroplasty using so-called jumbo cementless com- 75:663-73. ponents: an average 7-year follow-up study. J Arthro- 17. Lachiewicz PF, Hussamy OD. Revision of the plasty. 2000;15:8-15. acetabulum without cement with use of the Harris- 20. Moskal JT, Danisa OA, Shaffrey CI. Isolated revi- Galante porous-coated implant. Two to eight-year sion acetabuloplasty using a porous-coated cement- 15. Weber KL, Callaghan JJ, Goetz DD, Johnston RC. results. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1994;76:1834-9. less acetabular component without removal of a Revision of a failed cemented total hip prosthesis well-fixed femoral component. A 3- to 9-year follow- with insertion of an acetabular component without 18. Tanzer M, Drucker D, Jasty M, McDonald M, Har- up study. J Arthroplasty. 1997;12:719-27. cement and a femoral component with cement. A ris WH. Revision of the acetabular component with five to eight-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg an uncemented Harris-Galante porous-coated pros- 21. Jasty M. Jumbo cups and morsalized graft. Or- Am. 1996;78:982-94. thesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1992;74:987-94. thop Clin North Am. 1998;29:249-54.