Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2016 Nov 8;4(11):e2.
doi: 10.2106/JBJS.RVW.15.00119.

Current Construct Options for Revision of Large Acetabular Defects: A Systematic Review

Marieke Baauw  1 , Miranda L van Hooff, Maarten Spruit
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Current Construct Options for Revision of Large Acetabular Defects: A Systematic Review

Marieke Baauw et al. JBJS Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Many treatment options are available for the revision of large acetabular defects. Debate continues as to which technique is most effective.

Methods: A systematic review was performed according to the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions for large acetabular defects. Quality assessment was performed next with use of 8 items of the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist for reports of observational studies. Large acetabular defects were defined as American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) type III or IV or Paprosky type 3A or 3B. Outcomes included re-revision, radiographic loosening, complications, and clinical outcomes.

Results: We found 7 different treatment options for large acetabular defects in 20 included studies: antiprotrusio cage (8 studies), Trabecular Metal (Zimmer) augment and shell (4 studies), bone impaction grafting with a metal mesh (2 studies), hemispherical implant with hook and flanges (2 studies), Trabecular Metal augment or structural allograft with cup (2 studies), cup-cage reconstruction (1 study), and custom-made triflange component (1 study).

Conclusions: Trabecular Metal augments and shells gave the most promising results in terms of the re-revision rate and radiographic loosening. Reconstruction with an antiprotrusio cage was the most frequently reported technique, with good results in a physically low-demand elderly population. Bone impaction grafting seems not appropriate for pelvic discontinuity and prone to failure in patients with Paprosky type-3B defects. In those cases, a custom-made triflange implant or a cup-cage reconstruction might be the best alternative, but few reports of sufficient quality are available yet.

Level of evidence: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Blumenfeld TJ. Implant choices, technique, and results in revision acetabular surgery: a review. Hip Int. 2012 May-Jun;22(3):235-47.
    1. Chen AF, Hozack WJ. Component selection in revision total hip arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am. 2014 Jul;45(3):275-86.
    1. Issack PS, Nousiainen M, Beksac B, Helfet DL, Sculco TP, Buly RL. Acetabular component revision in total hip arthroplasty. Part II: management of major bone loss and pelvic discontinuity. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2009 Nov;38(11):550-6.
    1. Jain S, Grogan RJ, Giannoudis PV. Options for managing severe acetabular bone loss in revision hip arthroplasty. A systematic review. Hip Int. 2014 Mar-Apr;24(2):109-22. Epub 2013 Oct 30.
    1. Sheth NP, Nelson CL, Springer BD, Fehring TK, Paprosky WG. Acetabular bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty: evaluation and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2013 Mar;21(3):128-39.

LinkOut - more resources