Outcome of cages in revision arthroplasty of the acetabulum: a systematic review.
Journal
Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis
ISSN: 2531-6745
Titre abrégé: Acta Biomed
Pays: Italy
ID NLM: 101295064
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 01 2019
10 01 2019
Historique:
received:
10
01
2019
accepted:
10
01
2019
entrez:
5
2
2019
pubmed:
5
2
2019
medline:
28
3
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To investigate the clinical, radiological and functional outcomes of acetabular revisions with acetabular reinforcement rings and cages. A comprehensive literature study of international databases was performed. Inclusion criteria were cementless revisions, use of reinforcement rings, radiological and clinical follow-up, availability of full text in English, publication between January 1990 and July 2018. In a second further analysis, we selected only studies describing patients with more severe acetabular defects (AAOS 3, AAOS 4, Paprosky III). Data extracted included mean follow-up period, radiographic follow-up, functional scores, implant failures and survival rate. We included in our review 1327 acetabular revisions described in 28 articles. The most commonly used reinforcement rings were Burch-Schneider ring, the Muller ring and the Ganz ring. Mean follow-up for all patients together was 8.8 years. Clinical or radiological signs of loosening were reported in 191 patients, 83 patients needed further acetabular revision for aseptic loosening and 41 patients received additional surgeries for septic loosening. The mean value of the Harris Hip Score reported at the last follow-up was 76.3. Nineteen articles fulfilled the criteria for further analysis about high-grade acetabular bone defects. We analyzed 649 revisions with mean follow-up period of 8.2 years. Clinical or radiological loosening was reported in 90 patients, additional acetabular revision was performed in 39 patients and 25 patients needed further surgeries for deep infection. Acetabular revisions with cages are characterized by good survival rates and functional scores with a mean follow-up period of 8 years.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE WORK
To investigate the clinical, radiological and functional outcomes of acetabular revisions with acetabular reinforcement rings and cages.
METHODS
A comprehensive literature study of international databases was performed. Inclusion criteria were cementless revisions, use of reinforcement rings, radiological and clinical follow-up, availability of full text in English, publication between January 1990 and July 2018. In a second further analysis, we selected only studies describing patients with more severe acetabular defects (AAOS 3, AAOS 4, Paprosky III). Data extracted included mean follow-up period, radiographic follow-up, functional scores, implant failures and survival rate.
RESULTS
We included in our review 1327 acetabular revisions described in 28 articles. The most commonly used reinforcement rings were Burch-Schneider ring, the Muller ring and the Ganz ring. Mean follow-up for all patients together was 8.8 years. Clinical or radiological signs of loosening were reported in 191 patients, 83 patients needed further acetabular revision for aseptic loosening and 41 patients received additional surgeries for septic loosening. The mean value of the Harris Hip Score reported at the last follow-up was 76.3. Nineteen articles fulfilled the criteria for further analysis about high-grade acetabular bone defects. We analyzed 649 revisions with mean follow-up period of 8.2 years. Clinical or radiological loosening was reported in 90 patients, additional acetabular revision was performed in 39 patients and 25 patients needed further surgeries for deep infection.
CONCLUSION
Acetabular revisions with cages are characterized by good survival rates and functional scores with a mean follow-up period of 8 years.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30714995
doi: 10.23750/abm.v90i1-S.8081
pmc: PMC6503392
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
24-31Références
Musculoskelet Surg. 2019 Apr;103(1):1-13
pubmed: 29654551
Acta Orthop Scand. 2001 Jun;72(3):221-7
pubmed: 11480594
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999 Dec;(369):187-97
pubmed: 10611874
Acta Orthop. 2017 Feb;88(1):35-40
pubmed: 27892748
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008 Sep;90(9):1164-71
pubmed: 18757955
Acta Orthop. 2006 Apr;77(2):234-41
pubmed: 16752284
J Arthroplasty. 2014 Jan;29(1):229-35
pubmed: 23719095
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007 Apr;89(4):780-5
pubmed: 17403800
Acta Orthop Belg. 2011 Feb;77(1):61-7
pubmed: 21473447
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1996 May;78(5):693-7
pubmed: 8642025
J Orthop Sci. 2010 Nov;15(6):764-71
pubmed: 21116894
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016 Feb 3;98(3):233-42
pubmed: 26842414
Acta Orthop. 2006 Feb;77(1):79-86
pubmed: 16534705
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003 Dec;85(12):2358-64
pubmed: 14668505
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1997;116(1-2):55-9
pubmed: 9006767
Int Orthop. 2015 Apr;39(4):623-30
pubmed: 25277762
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016 Mar;474(3):731-40
pubmed: 26467611
J Arthroplasty. 2004 Jun;19(4):436-46
pubmed: 15188101
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1976 Nov-Dec;(121):20-32
pubmed: 991504
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002 May;(398):136-45
pubmed: 11964643
Can J Surg. 2000 Aug;43(4):276-82
pubmed: 10948688
J Arthroplasty. 2017 Nov;32(11):3495-3501
pubmed: 28697865
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996 Sep;(330):108-14
pubmed: 8804280
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001 Jun;83(6):862-7
pubmed: 11407794
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1997;116(4):233-5
pubmed: 9128780
J Arthroplasty. 2018 Nov;33(11):3524-3530
pubmed: 30060906
J Arthroplasty. 1994 Aug;9(4):359-67
pubmed: 7964766
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014 Apr 16;96(8):624-30
pubmed: 24740658
Acta Orthop Scand. 1999 Jun;70(3):240-9
pubmed: 10429598
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1992 Sep;74(5):716-20
pubmed: 1527120
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1992 Sep;74(5):711-5
pubmed: 1527119
Bone Joint J. 2017 May;99-B(5):607-613
pubmed: 28455469
Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2016 May;26(4):407-13
pubmed: 27010392
Chir Organi Mov. 2009 May;93(1):15-9
pubmed: 19711157
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1992 Oct;(283):149-55
pubmed: 1395239