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
. 2020 Jan-Feb;11(1):62-66.
doi: 10.1016/j.jcot.2019.04.021. Epub 2019 Apr 25.

Cup-cage construct for massive acetabular defect in revision hip arthroplasty- A case series with medium to long-term follow-up

Dan Arvinte  1 , Manish Kiran  1 , Manoj Sood  1
Affiliations

Cup-cage construct for massive acetabular defect in revision hip arthroplasty- A case series with medium to long-term follow-up

Dan Arvinte et al. J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2020 Jan-Feb.

Erratum in

Abstract

Objective: Cup-cage reconstruction has emerged as a possible solution for managing massive acetabular defects with a few existing studies reporting encouraging results at mid-term follow-up. We present our experience with this unitised construct.

Method: Six patients (7 hips) with a mean age of 76 years (73-81) were revised due to catastrophic aseptic failure of a primary cup implanted 10-19 years previously, having a Paprosky type 3B acetabular defect.

Results: At a mean follow-up of 72 months (63-140) no cases have required re-revision. Oxford Hip Scores improved from an average of 8 (1-17) preoperatively to an average of 36 (18-45) at the last follow-up. WOMAC scores preoperatively averaged 76 (49-96) and postoperatively averaged 26.5 points (0-69) at the last follow-up. SF-12 scores improved in both components. One patient showed non-progressive osteolysis around the ischial flange and one had less than 5 mm migration of the construct. One patient died of unrelated causes.

Conclusion: Our study presents one of the longest follow-up of cup-cage construct and supports the previously reported good results; it encourages the use of this construct in reconstruction of massive acetabular defect, with or without pelvic discontinuity.

Keywords: Cup-cage construct; Massive acetabular defect; Revision hip arthroplasty.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Intra-operative picture of the Cup-cage Construct.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Case example showing pre-operative radiograph.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Cup-Cage radiograph at 7 years follow-up. In this case a Trident Tritanium Cup (Stryker, Michigan) and a Burch-Schneider Cage was used.
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Another Case example showing pre-operative radiograph.
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Cup-Cage radiograph at 9 years follow-up. In this case TMARS System was used.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Della Valle C.J., Rosenberg A.G. Revision Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty. Lippincot Williams & Wilkins; 2012. Cementless acetabular reconstruction in revision total hip arthroplasty; pp. 155–162.
    1. Della Valle C.J., Berger R.A., Rosenberg A.G. Cementless acetabular reconstruction in revision total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;420:96–100. - PubMed
    1. Leopold S.S., Rosenberg A.G., Bhatt R.D. Cementless acetabular revision. Evaluation at an average of 10.5 years. Clin Orthop. 1999;369:179–186. - PubMed
    1. Paprosky W.G., O'Rourke M., Sporer S.M. The treatment of acetabular bone defects with an associated pelvic discontinuity. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;441:216–220. - PubMed
    1. Perka C., Ludwig R. Reconstruction of segmental defects during revision procedures of the acetabulum with the Burch-Schneider anti-protrusion cage. J Arthroplast. 2001;16(5):568–574. - PubMed