Trabecular Titanium acetabular cups in hip revision surgery: mid-term clinical and radiological outcomes

Abstract

Introduction:

Severe acetabular bone loss during revision hip arthroplasty can be restored with different surgical techniques. Best results have been observed using porous tantalum cementless cups. Trabecular Titanium (TT) cups were designed to reproduce the structure, mechanical and biological characteristics of trabecular bone. Few clinical studies have been published with these cups. The aim of this study is to evaluate the clinical and radiological outcome of patients with large acetabular defects (Paprosky IIb or higher) revised using TT cups.

Materials and methods:

64 consecutive patients who underwent revision for total hip arthroplasty (THA) between 2011 and 2015 at our institution were enrolled. All were classified as Paprosky IIb, IIc, IIIa and IIIb. Periprosthetic joint infections and fractures were not included in this study. Radiographic and clinical (Harris Hip Score (HHS)) outcomes were evaluated. Kaplan-Meyer survivorship curve was performed.

Results:

Complete data of 58 patients (mean follow-up 48.3 months) were analysed. 6 patients underwent a further revision (10.3%). Causes of re-revision were instability (5.2%), infection (3.4%) and aseptic loosening (1.7%). No radiolucent lines or signs of migration were observed. Survivorship was 94.8%. HHS Improved from a mean of 36.5–83.7.

Discussion:

TT cups demonstrated encouraging results at mid-term follow-up. Cup modularity represented a helpful tool to restore hip rotation centre and to reduce the risk of dislocation. The capacity of trabecular titanium to induce bone growth and the versatility of modularity, make the Delta TT System a very useful aid for surgeons who are more frequently faced with complex revision.

Keywords

Acetabulum follow-up studies hip reoperation titanium

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

D’Antonio

Capello

Borden

et al . Classification and management of acetabular abnormalities in total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1989; 243: 126–137.

Paprosky

Perona

Lawrence

JM.

Acetabular defect classification and surgical reconstruction in revision arthroplasty. A 6-year follow-up evaluation. J Arthroplasty 1994; 9: 33–44.

Telleria

Gee

AO.

Classifications in brief: Paprosky classification of acetabular bone loss. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2013; 471: 3725–3730.

Baauw

van Hooff

Spruit

Current construct options for revision of large acetabular defects: a systematic review. JBJS Rev 2016; 4. pii: 10.2106/JBJS.RVW.15.00119

Wegrzyn

Pibarot

Jacquel

et al . Acetabular reconstruction using a Kerboull cross-plate, structural allograft and cemented dual-mobility cup in revision THA at a minimum 5-year follow-up. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29: 432–437.

Winter

Piert

Volkmann

et al . Allogenic cancellous bone graft and a Burch-Schneider ring for acetabular reconstruction in revision hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2001; 83: 862–867.

Garcia-Cimbrelo

Cordero

Impacted morsellised allograft and cemented cup in acetabular revision surgery. A five to nine year follow-up study. Hip Int 2002; 12: 281–288.

Kim

Kang

et al . Use of cementless acetabular component with a hook and iliac flanges in revision arthroplasty for massive acetabular defect. J Orthop Sci 2012; 17: 18–24.

Hogan

Ries

Treatment of massive acetabular bone loss and pelvic discontinuity with a custom triflange component and ilio-sacral fixation based on preoperative CT templating. A report of 2 cases. Hip Int 2015; 25: 585–588.

10.

Christie

Barrington

Brinson

et al . Bridging massive acetabular defects with the triflange cup: 2- to 9-year results. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2001; 393: 216–227.

11.

Parthasarathy

Starly

Raman

et al . Mechanical evaluation of porous titanium (Ti6Al4V) structures with electron beam melting (EBM). J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2010; 3: 249–259.

12.

Dallago

Fontanari

Torresani

et al . Fatigue and biological properties of Ti-6Al-4V ELI cellular structures with variously arranged cubic cells made by selective laser melting. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2018; 78: 381–394.

13.

Murr

Quinones

Gaytan

et al . Microstructure and mechanical behavior of Ti-6Al-4V produced by rapid-layer manufacturing, for biomedical applications. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2009; 2: 20–32.

14.

Marin

Fusi

Pressacco

et al . Characterization of cellular solids in Ti6Al4V for orthopaedic implant applications: trabecular titanium. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2010; 3: 373–381.

15.

Perticarini

Zanon

Rossi

et al . Clinical and radiographic outcomes of a trabecular titanium™ acetabular component in hip arthroplasty: results at minimum 5 years follow-up. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2015; 16: 375.

16.

Gallart

Fernández-Valencia

Riba

et al . Trabecular Titanium^TM cups and augments in revision total hip arthroplasty: clinical results, radiology and survival outcomes. Hip Int 2016; 26: 486–491.

17.

Steno

Kokavec

Necas

Acetabular revision arthroplasty using trabecular titanium implants. Int Orthop 2015; 39: 389–395.

18.

Gruen

McNeice

Amstutz

HC.

“Modes of failure” of cemented stem-type femoral components: a radiographic analysis of loosening. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1979; 141: 17–27.

19.

Engh

Sr Bugbee

Culpepper

2nd . Cementless acetabular components: optimums and outcomes. Orthopedics 1995; 18: 813–815.

20.

Harris

WH.

Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1969; 51: 737–755.

21.

Parvizi

Zmistowski

Berbari

et al . New definition for periprosthetic joint infection: from the Workgroup of the Musculoskeletal Infection Society. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011; 469: 2992–2994.

22.

Brüggemann

Fredlund

Mallmin

et al . Are porous tantalum cups superior to conventional reinforcement rings? Acta Orthop 2017; 88: 35–40.

23.

Flecher

Appy

Parratte

et al . Use of porous tantalum components in Paprosky two and three acetabular revision. A minimum five-year follow-up of fifty one hips. Int Orthop 2017; 41: 911–916.