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
. 2026 Jan 14:37:101929.
doi: 10.1016/j.artd.2025.101929. eCollection 2026 Feb.

Graft Incorporation and Cup Migration in Acetabular Impaction Bone Grafting for Revision Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 1093 Hips

Artsiom Klimko  1 , Octavian Andronic  1 , Victor Yan Zhe Lu  2 , Dominik Kaiser  1 , Dimitris Dimitriou  1 , Armando Hoch  1 , Patrick O Zingg  1
Affiliations

Graft Incorporation and Cup Migration in Acetabular Impaction Bone Grafting for Revision Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 1093 Hips

Artsiom Klimko et al. Arthroplast Today. .

Abstract

Background: Acetabular impaction bone grafting (IBG) is used to address bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA). We evaluated graft incorporation and cup migration after acetabular IBG in rTHA.

Methods: Systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Scopus from inception to June 30, 2024 (PROSPERO CRD42024557047). Studies of acetabular IBG in rTHA with ≥12-month follow-up were included. Outcomes were graft incorporation and horizontal (i.e., lateral to medial axis) and vertical cup migration. Prespecified subgroup analyses assessed bone-loss severity, graft type, additional fixation, and age. Random-effects meta-analyses were used; heterogeneity was quantified with I2. Risk of bias was assessed with the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies.

Results: Nineteen studies (1093 hips) were included; weighted follow-up was 8.0 years (range 2.0-16.9). Pooled graft incorporation was 89% (95% CI [confidence interval] 79-96; I2 85%). Mean lateral migration was 2.4 mm (95% CI 0.53-4.27) and mean superior migration 4.2 mm (95% CI 1.61-6.75); heterogeneity was high (I2 100% for both). Lateral migration was greater in cohorts with ≥5 years' follow-up than <5 years (3.65 vs 1.16 mm; P = .018). No significant differences in incorporation were detected by bone-loss severity, graft type, or age; however, subgroup analyses were frequently underpowered and exploratory.

Conclusions: Acetabular IBG can achieve mid- to long-term graft incorporation of 89%, but estimates are imprecise due to heterogeneous (I2 = 85%), predominantly retrospective evidence. Migration occurs-most commonly cranial-and may accrue over time; values often remain within commonly accepted surveillance thresholds but warrant structured radiographic follow-up. Given high heterogeneity, variable outcome definitions, and potential small-study/publication bias, recommendations should be interpreted cautiously.

Keywords: Cup migration; Femoral; Graft; Hip arthroplasty; Impaction bone grafting; Incorporation; Revision.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA flowchart for study selection into systematic review. PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses; THA, total hip arthroplasty.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Pooled rates of horizontal cup migration. The forest plot shows the proportion of surviving grafts with the size of squares representing the weight of each study. I2 represents heterogeneity.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Pooled rates of vertical cup migration. The forest plot shows the proportion of surviving grafts with the size of squares representing the weight of each study. I2 represents heterogeneity.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Pooled graft incorporation rates in acetabular impaction bone grafting. The forest plot shows the proportion of surviving grafts with the size of squares representing the weight of each study. I2 represents heterogeneity.
Supplementary Figure 1
Supplementary Figure 1
Supplementary Figure 2
Supplementary Figure 2
Supplementary Figure 3
Supplementary Figure 3
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Comba F., Buttaro M., Pusso R., Piccaluga F. Acetabular revision surgery with impacted bone allografts and cemented cups in patients younger than 55 years. Int Orthop. 2009;33:611–616. doi: 10.1007/s00264-007-0503-x. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Schreurs B.W., Te Stroet M.A., Rijnen W.H., Gardeniers J.W. Acetabular re-revision with impaction bone grafting and a cemented polyethylene cup; a biological option for successive reconstructions. Hip Int. 2015;25:44–49. doi: 10.5301/hipint.5000193. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Slooff T.J., Huiskes R., van Horn J., Lemmens A.J. Bone grafting in total hip replacement for acetabular protrusion. Acta Orthop Scand. 1984;55:593–596. doi: 10.3109/17453678408992402. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Schreurs B.W., Busch V.J., Welten M.L., Verdonschot N., Slooff T.J., Gardeniers J.W. Acetabular reconstruction with impaction bone-grafting and a cemented cup in patients younger than fifty years old. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86:2385–2392. doi: 10.2106/00004623-200411000-00004. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Gill T.J., Sledge J.B., Müller M.E. The Bürch-Schneider anti-protrusio cage in revision total hip arthroplasty: indications, principles and long-term results. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1998;80:946–953. doi: 10.1302/0301-620x.80b6.8658. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources