Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech. 2020; 87(6):387-395 | DOI: 10.55095/achot2020/061

Outcomes of Revisions of the Acetabular Component of THA with Paprosky Type 3a and 3b Defects Using Tantalum Trabecular Metal Implants 2-10 Years PostoperativelyOriginal papers

D. MUSIL1,2,*, T. TRNKA1, J. KLOUDA1,2, J. PERTLÍČEK1, M. HELD1, J. STEHLÍK1,2
1 Ortopedické oddělení, Nemocnice České Budějovice, a.s.
2 Zdravotně sociální fakulta, Jihočeská univerzita v Českých Budějovicích

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY:
Tantallum trabecular metal implants (Trabecular Metal Technology - TMT) considerably changed the acetabular reconstruction options in revision surgeries with extensive bone defects and distorted pelvic ring integrity. The purpose of this study is to ascertain the short-term to medium-term outcomes of acetabular reconstruction through TMT implants in patients with Paprosky type 3a and 3b acetabular defects and in case of pelvic discontinuity.

MATERIAL AND METHODS:
The prospective monocentric study included patients in whom the revision of acetabular components in total hip arthroplasty was performed, the acetabular defect was classified as Paprosky 3a and higher, a TMT implant was used for reconstruction, and the follow-up period was at least 2 years after surgery. In total, 87 patients who had met the inclusion criteria were operated on and followed-up.
The patients in the study group underwent a clinical examination, an X-ray and also an assessment using the Harris hip score. Moreover, the patients were asked about their satisfaction with the surgical outcome, their willingness to undergo the same procedure again in case of difficulties, and they were also asked to rate the outcome in percentage term and by assigning grades. Also, an analysis of the reasons for revision and subsequent complications was carried out. Implant integration and its migration were evaluated on an X-ray.

RESULTS:
32 men and 55 women were subjects to evaluation, with a balanced number of operated sides (44:43 in favour of the right side). One-stage procedures prevailed, which were performed in a total of 74 cases, while two-stage revisions were performed in 13 cases in the study group. In three patients (3.5%) pelvic discontinuity was diagnosed, 69 patients (79%) suffered from Paprosky 3a defect and 15 patients (17%) from Paprosky 3b defect. The first patients underwent surgery in 2009 and the mean follow-up period in the study group was 48 months. In 1 patient the TMT implant was removed for infectious complications, in the remaining part of the group the TMT implant was fully integrated with no signs of loosening or migration in the monitored period. In the assessment using the Harris hip score, the mean score of 80.4 (range 36-99) was achieved. When assessing the satisfaction with the surgical outcome, the mean value achieved was 94.4%, and the mean assigned grade was 1.26 (on a school grading scale).

DISCUSSION:
Extensive bone defects and pelvic discontinuity represent an issue in revisions of the acetabular component in total hip arthroplasty. There are several options how to address these conditions. State-of-the-art TMT implants thanks to their short-term and medium-term outcomes appear as one of the most beneficial option with a low failure rate both in our study group and in published papers.

CONCLUSIONS:
Evaluation of this monocentric prospective study reveals encouraging short-term and medium-term outcomes of the use of TMT implants in managing extensive acetabular bone defects of Paprosky 3a and 3b type and supports their further introduction into practice at our department.

Keywords: total hip arthroplasty (THA), revision implantation, TMT implant

Published: December 1, 2020  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
MUSIL D, TRNKA T, KLOUDA J, PERTLÍČEK J, HELD M, STEHLÍK J. Outcomes of Revisions of the Acetabular Component of THA with Paprosky Type 3a and 3b Defects Using Tantalum Trabecular Metal Implants 2-10 Years Postoperatively. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech. 2020;87(6):387-395. doi: 10.55095/achot2020/061. PubMed PMID: 33408003.
Download citation

References

  1. Abolghasemian M, Tangsaroporn S, Drexler M, Barbuto R, Backstein D, Safir O, Kuzyk P, Gross A. The challenge of pelvic discontinuity: cup-cage reconstruction does better than conventional cages in mid-term. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2014;96:195-200. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  2. Bauer TW, Parvizi J, Kobayashi N, Krebs V. Diagnosis of periprosthetic infection. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88:869-882. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  3. Beckmann NA, Weiss S, Klotz MC, Gondan M, Jaeger S, Bitsch RG. Loosening after acetabular revision: comparison of trabecular metal and reinforcement rings. A systematic review. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29:229-235. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  4. Deirmengian C, Hallab N, Tarabishy A, Della Valle C, Jacobs JJ, Lonner J, Booth RE. Jr Synovial fluid biomarkers for periprosthetic infection. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:2017-2023. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  5. Echempati KK, Malhotra R, Pichai S, Reddy AVG, Podhili Subramani AK, Gautam D, Bollavaram VR, Seth NP. Results of trabecular metal augments in Paprosky IIIA and IIIB defects: a multicentre study. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2018;100:1132-1140. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  6. Gallo J. Předoperační diagnostika infekcí kloubních náhrad. Ortopedie. 2017;11:75-81.
  7. Jahoda D, Nyč O, Pokorný D, Landor I, Sosna A. Antibiotika v prevenci infekčních komplikací u operací kloubních náhrad. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech. 2006;73:108-114. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  8. Jenkins DR, Odland AN, Sierra RJ, Hanssen AD, Lewallen DG. Minimum five-year outcomes with porous tantalum acetabular cup and augment construct in complex revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017;99:e49. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  9. Kim YS, Abrahams JM, Callari SA, De Ieso C, Costi K, Howie DW, Solomon LB. Proximal translation of 1mm within the first two years of revision total hip arthroplasty correctly predicts whether or not an acetabular komponent is loose in 80% of cases: a case control study with intra-operative outcomes. Bone Joint J. 2017;99-B:465-474. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  10. Lakstein D, Backstein D, Safir O, Kosashvili Y, Gross AE. Trabecular Metal™ cups for acetabular defects with 50 % or less host bone contact. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467:2318-2324. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  11. Landor I, Vavřík P, Jahoda D. Obecné principy léčby infekce kloubních náhrad Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech. 2005;72:183-191. Go to PubMed...
  12. Löchel J, Janz V, Hipfl C, Perka C, Wassilew GI. Reconstruction of acetabular defects with porous tantalum shells and augments in revision total hip arthroplasty at ten-year follow-up. Bone Joint J. 2019;101-B:311-316. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  13. Martin JR, Barrett I, Sierra RJ, Lewallen DG, Berry DJ. Construct rigidity: keystone for treating pelvic discontinuity. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017;99:e43. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  14. Matharu GS, Judge A, Murray DW, Pandit HG. Trabecular Metal versus non-Trabecular Metal acetabular components and the risk of re-revision following revision total hip arthroplasty: a propensity score-matched study from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2018;100:1132-1140. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  15. Musil D, Stehlík J, Abrman K. Algoritmus diagnostiky a léčby u infekce totálních náhrad. Ortopedie. 2017;11:89-96.
  16. Musil D, Balejová M, Horníková M, Chrdle A, Mallátová N, Nyč O, Chmelík V, Gallo J, Jahoda D, Stehlík J. Infekce endoprotéz: doporučení antibiotické léčby. Společné doporučení České společnosti pro ortopedii a traumatologii (ČSOT) a Společnosti infekčního lékařství (SIL ČLS JEP). Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech. 2017;84:219-230. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  17. Paprosky WG, Perona PG, Lawrence JM. Acetabular defect classification and surgical reconstruction in revision arthroplasty. A 6-year folow up evaluation. J. Arthroplasty. 1994; 33-44. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  18. Solomon LB, Abrahams JM, Callari SA, Howie DW. The stability of the porous tantalum components used in revision THA to treat severe acetabular defects: a radiostereometric analysis study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2018;100:1926-1933. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  19. Tokarski AT, Novack TA, Parvizi J. Is tantalum protective against infection in revision total hip arthroplasty? Bone Joint J. 2015;97-B:45-49. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  20. Trč T, Kvasnička J, Kudrnová Z. Prevence žilního tromboembolismu v ortopedii podle 7. konference American College of Chest Physicians (ACPP). Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech. 2007;74:126-131. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  21. Witehouse MR, Masri BA, Duncan CP, Garbuz DS. Continued good results with modular trabecular metal augments for acetabular defects in hip arthroplasty at 7 to 11 years. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473:521-527. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...