Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background:

There is a trend for using jumbo cups/oblong devices for acetabular reconstruction as alternative to biological solutions. We report about a spectrum of reconstruction methods and their mid-term results.

Methods:

Inclusion of 214 consecutive patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty revision surgery. Patients were examined using the Harris Hip Score (HHS). Based on the intraoperative acetabular defect situation, cases were classified into 1 of 5 possible categories of a stability classification for acetabular replacement (SCAR).

Results:

Mean HHS improved from 42 preoperatively (range 12–62) to 77 (range 54–90; p < 0.05) 6 months after operation. There were significant differences of the pre-and postoperative HHS between SCAR subgroups (p < 0.05). Inter-observer reliability of the SCAR was high (kappa 0.94 (95% CI, 0.90–0.98)). Re-revision was performed in 15 cases (7%).

Conclusion:

The SCAR classification is a practicable tool for intraoperative decision-making as it provides standardised treatment recommendations.

Keywords

Acetabular defect acetabulum classification dysplastic jumbo cup SCAR total hip arthroplasty total hip revision arthroplasty

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Gwam

Mistry

Mohamed

, et al. Current epidemiology of revision total hip arthroplasty in the United States: national inpatient sample 2009 to 2013. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32: 2088–2092.

Schreurs

Keurentjes

Gardeniers

, et al. Acetabular revision with impacted morsellised cancellous bone grafting and a cemented acetabular component: a 20- to 25-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2009; 91: 1148–1153.

Gustilo

Pasternak

HS.

Revision total hip arthroplasty with titanium ingrowth prosthesis and bone grafting for failed cemented femoral component loosening. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1988; 235: 111–119.

D’Antonio

JA.

Periprosthetic bone loss of the acetabulum. Classification and management. Orthop Clin North Am 1992; 23: 279–290.

Saleh

Holtzman

Gafni ASaleh

, et al. Development, test reliability and validation of a classification for revision hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Res 2001; 19: 50–56.

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.

Johanson

Driftmier

Cerynik

, et al. Grading acetabular defects: the need for a universal and valid system. J Arthroplasty 2010; 25: 425–431.

Kunutsor

Whitehouse

Blom

, et al. One- and two-stage surgical revision of peri-prosthetic joint infection of the hip: a pooled individual participant data analysis of 44 cohort studies. Europ J Epidemiol 2018; 33: 933–946.

Zmistowski

Parvizi

Identification and treatment of infected total hip arthroplasty. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther 2012; 10: 509–518.

10.

Gustafson

Fryback

Rose

, et al. A decision theoretic methodology for severity index development. Med Decis Making 1986; 6: 27–35.

11.

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.

12.

Taunton

Fehring

Edwards

, et al. Pelvic discontinuity treated with custom triflange component: a reliable option. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2012; 470: 428–434.

13.

Ilchmann

Franzén

Mjoberg

, et al. Measurement accuracy in acetabular cup migration. A comparison of four radiologic methods versus roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis. J Arthroplasty 1992; 7: 121–127.

14.

Finnila

Moritz

Svedstro

, et al. Increased migration of uncemented acetabular cups in female total hip arthroplasty patients with low systemic bone mineral density. A 2-year RSA and 8-year radiographic follow-up study of 34 patients. Acta Orthop 2016; 87: 48–54.

15.

Landis

Koch

GG.

The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33: 159–174.

16.

Parvizi

Tan

Goswami

, et al. The 2018 definition of periprosthetic hip and knee infection: an evidence-based and validated criteria. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33: 1309–1314.

17.

Renner

Perka

Trampuz

, et al. [Treatment of periprosthetic infections]. Chirurg 2016; 87: 831–838.

18.

Gross

Allan

Catre

, et al. Bone grafts in hip replacement surgery. The pelvic side. Orthop Clin North Am 1993; 24: 679–695.

19.

O’Neill

Creedon

Brennan

, et al. Acetabular revision using trabecular metal augments for Paprosky type 3 defects. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33: 823–828.

20.

Brand

Yoder

Pedersen

. Interobserver variability in interpreting radiographic lucencies about total hip reconstructions. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1985: 237–239.

21.

Chandler

HP.

Use of allografts and prostheses in the reconstruction of failed total hip replacements. Orthopedics 1992; 15: 1207–1218.

22.

Campbell

Garbuz

Masri

, et al. Reliability of acetabular bone defect classification systems in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2001; 16: 83–86.

23.

Engh

McGovern

Bobyn

, et al. A quantitative evaluation of periprosthetic bone-remodeling after cementless total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1992; 74: 1009–1020.

Mid-term follow-up after all-size acetabular revision and proposal for a stability classification system