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
Review
. 2024 Dec 4;11(4):e70091.
doi: 10.1002/jeo2.70091. eCollection 2024 Oct.

Use of morselized bone allograft in revision hip arthroplasty for massive acetabular defect: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Pietro Cimatti  1   2 , Nicolandrea Del Piccolo  1 , Benedetta Dallari  1 , Alessandro Mazzotta  1 , Dante Dallari  1
Affiliations
Review

Use of morselized bone allograft in revision hip arthroplasty for massive acetabular defect: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Pietro Cimatti et al. J Exp Orthop. .

Abstract

Purpose: Many treatment options are available for the revision of large acetabular defects. Debate continues as to which technique is most effective. This meta-analysis aimed to determine the rates of failure of acetabular bone defects Paprosky type III or American Academy of Orthopaedic types III-IV treated with morselized allograft in association with cemented cup or cementless cup or reinforcement devices.

Methods: The US National Library of Medicine (PubMed/MEDLINE), EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were queried for publications from January 1980 to 1 April 2024 utilizing keywords pertinent to total hip arthroplasty (THA), acetabular impaction bone grafting and revision THA. The main outcome measure was the 9-year implant failure rate.

Results: Thirty-nine articles were eligible for inclusion in the current study. We found 41 treatment approaches that we grouped into three different treatment options: 1 = morselized allograft and cemented cup (10 studies); 2 =morselized allograft and cementless cup (nine studies); 3 = morselized allograft and device (22 studies). The overall implant failure rate was 2.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.6%-2.8%) at a mean of 9.2 years. There was no significant difference in failure rates between different treatment options (1.6% [95% CI, 0.9%-2.6%]) for morselized allograft and cemented cup; 2.1% (95% CI, 1.4%-3.2%) for morselized allograft and cementless cup; 2.5% (95% CI, 1.7%-3.7%) for morselized allograft and device) between the three different types of treatment (heterogeneity between groups p = 0.351).It was determined that the number one cause of failure was aseptic loosening (80.5%), followed by infection (13.1%) and dislocation (6.4%). THA with reinforcement devices has a higher incidence of infection (3.6 vs. 0.7%, p = 0.001) and dislocation (1.4 vs. 0.6%, p = 0.010) than THA with a cemented cup.

Conclusions: The use of morselized allograft in hip revision of large acetabular defects has low implant failure rates, independently of the associated type of implant. Reinforcement devices increase the risk of re-revision for infection and dislocation.

Level of evidence: Level III.

Keywords: acetabular defect; hip; morselized allograft.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Prisma flow diagram.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Forest plot for incidence of prosthesis failure in acetabular cemented cup [1], cementless cup [2] and antipro‐trusio devices [3] (1 vs. 2 p = 0.385, 1 vs. 3 p = 0.158, 2 vs. 3 p = 0.554).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Forest plot for prosthesis failure rate in acetabular cup reinforced with cage [1] or mesh [4].
Figure 4
Figure 4
Re‐revision incidence: Paprosky 3a versus Paprosky 3b.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Infection incidence: cemented cup versus reinforcement device.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Dislocation incidence: cemented cup versus reinforcement device.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Baauw, M. , van Hooff, M.L. & Spruit, M. (2016) Current construct options for revision of large acetabular defects. A systematic review. JBJS Reviews, 4(11). e2. Available from: 10.2106/JBJS.RVW.15.00119 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Berry, D.J. & Muller, M.E. (1992) Revision arthroplasty using an anti‐protrusio cage for massive acetabular bone deficiency from the maurice. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 74(5), 711–715. 10.1302/0301-620X.74B5.1527119 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Borland, W.S. , Bhattacharya, R. , Holland, J.P. & Brewster, N.T. (2012) Use of porous trabecular metal augments with impaction bone grafting in management of acetabular bone loss. Acta orthopaedica, 83, 347–352. Available from: 10.3109/17453674.2012.718518 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Buckup, J. , Salinas, E.A. , Valle, A.G.D. & Boettner, F. (2013) Treatment of large acetabular defects: a surgical technique utilizing impaction grafting into a metallic mesh. HSS Journal®: The Musculoskeletal Journal of Hospital for Special Surgery, 9(3), 242–246. Available from: 10.1007/s11420-013-9350-z - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Burastero, G. , Basso, M. , Carrega, G. , Cavagnaro, L. , Chiarlone, F. , Salomone, C. et al. (2017) Acetabular spacers in 2‐stage hip revision: is it worth it? A single‐ centre retrospective study. HIP International, 27, 187–192. Available from: 10.5301/hipint.5000446 - DOI - PubMed