lsolated acetabular revisions of articular surface replacement (ASR) XL implants with highly porous titanium cups and Delta bearings

Abstract

Introduction:

Articular surface replacement (ASR) XL implants exhibit higher-than-expected revision rates, blood ion concentrations and soft tissue lesions, making revisions troublesome and potentially unsatisfying. Appropriate techniques and outcomes in ASR XL revisions are rarely documented. The aims of this study were the assessments of pre-revision data, post-revision clinical and radiographic outcomes and ion levels in isolated acetabular ASR XL revisions performed using highly porous titanium cups and Delta ceramic articulations.

Methods:

18 isolated acetabular ASR XL revisions in 16 patients were performed using Ti-Por cups (Adler Ortho, Milan, Italy) and Delta bearings (CeramTec, Plochingen, Germany). Pre-revision demographic, clinical, radiological and implant-related features were assessed. Clinical and radiographic parameters (cup positioning, osseointegration) after revisions were evaluated at a minimum follow-up of 5 years. Ion concentrations in blood and urine were collected in pre-revision setting and 1 year after revision.

Results:

4 complications occurred in 3 different revisions (16.7%), 1 dislocation, 2 infections, 1 psoas impingement. No re-revision was performed at 5 years (1 scheduled arthroscopy). Good clinical outcomes were achieved (HHS score: 88.3 ± 9.2). All the cups showed reassuring signs of osseointegration (>3 parameters). Blood ion concentrations significantly decreased: patients with Co blood ion concentration over the threshold (7 μg/l) decreased from 76.5% to 0%. No pre-revision or intraoperative data influenced the revision outcomes.

Conclusions:

Highly porous titanium cups and Delta ceramic articulations provided reliable mid-term clinical and radiographic outcomes in isolated acetabular ASR XL revisions. Ion concentrations significantly decreased. Multicentre prospective controlled studies are required to confirm these preliminary outcomes.

Keywords

Additive manufacturing articular surface replacement delta ceramic ultraporous metal-on-metal Ti-Por

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Cip

Bach

Widemschek

, et al. Revision of articular surface replacement (ASR) total hip arthroplasty: correlation of perioperative data and early post-revision outcome results. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30: 1607–1617.

Laaksonen

Donahue

Madanat

, et al. Outcomes of the recalled articular surface replacement metal-on-metal hip implant system: a systematic review. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32: 341–346.

Sibia

King

Minimum 5-Year follow-up of articular surface replacement acetabular components used in total hip arthroplasty. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 2018; 47(6): 1–11.

Langton

Jameson

Joyce

, et al. Accelerating failure rate of the ASR total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2011; 93: 1011–1016.

Castagnini

Valente

Crimi

, et al. Component positioning and ceramic damage in cementless ceramic-on-ceramic total hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Sci 2019; 24: 643–651.

Munro

Masri

Duncan

, et al. High complication rate after revision of large-head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014; 472: 523–528.

Montalti

Castagnini

Giardina

, et al. Cementless total hip arthroplasty in Crowe III and IV dysplasia: high hip center and modular necks. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33: 1813–1819.

Engh

Bobyn

JD.

The influence of stem size and extent of porous coating on femoral bone resorption after primary cementless hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1988; (231): 7–28.

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.

10.

Dorr

Malik

Dastane

, et al. Combined anteversion technique for total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009; 467: 119–127.

11.

Moore

McAuley

Young

, et al. Radiographic signs of osseointegration in porous-coated acetabular components. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006; 444: 176–183.

12.

De Pasquale

Stea

Squarzoni

, et al. Metal-on-metal hip prostheses: correlation between debris in the synovial fluid and levels of cobalt and chromium ions in the bloodstream. Int Orthop 2014; 38: 469–475.

13.

Hothi

Matthies

Berber

, et al. The reliability of a scoring system for corrosion and fretting, and its relationship to material loss of tapered, modular junctions of retrieved hip implants. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29: 1313–1317.

14.

Telleria

Gee

AO.

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

15.

Castagnini

Bordini

Stea

, et al. Highly porous titanium cup in cementless total hip arthroplasty: registry results at eight years. Int Orthop 2019; 43: 1815–1821.

16.

Jacobs

Bénard

Meis

, et al. The unsuspected prosthetic joint infection: incidence and consequences of positive intra-operative cultures in presumed aseptic knee and hip revisions. Bone Joint J 2017; 99-B: 1482–1489.

17.

Liddle

Satchithananda

Henckel

, et al. Revision of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty in a tertiary centre: a prospective study of 39 hips with between 1 and 4 years of follow-up. Acta Orthop 2013; 84: 237–245.

18.

Matharu

Judge

Pandit

, et al. Which factors influence the rate of failure following metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty revision surgery performed for adverse reactions to metal debris? An analysis from the national joint registry for England and Wales. Acta Orthop 2013; 84: 237–245.

19.

Matharu

Eskelinen

Judge

, et al. Revision surgery of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties for adverse reactions to metal debris. Acta Orthop 2018; 89: 278–288.

20.

Cip

von Strempel

Bach

, et al. Implication of femoral stem on performance of articular surface replacement (ASR) XL total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29: 2127–2135.

21.

Pulido

Rachala

Cabanela

ME.

Cementless acetabular revision: past, present, and future. Revision total hip arthroplasty: the acetabular side using cementless implants. Int Orthop 2011; 35: 289–298.

22.

De Smet

Van Der Straeten

Van Orsouw

, et al. Revisions of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing: lessons learned and improved outcome. Orthop Clin North Am 2011; 42: 259–269, ix.

23.

Bordini

Stea

Castagnini

, et al. The influence of bearing surfaces on periprosthetic hip infections: analysis of thirty nine thousand, two hundred and six cementless total hip arthroplasties. Int Orthop 2019; 43: 103–109.

24.

Chang

Kim

Mansukhani

, et al. Midterm outcome of fourth-generation ceramic-on-ceramic bearing surfaces in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 2018; 26: 2309499018783913.

25.

Koch

Figgie

Jr Figgie

, et al. Ceramic bearings with titanium adapter sleeves implanted during revision hip arthroplasty show minimal fretting or corrosion: a retrieval analysis. HSS J 2017; 13: 241–247.

26.

Steno

Kokavec

Necas

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

27.

Gallart

Fernández-Valencia

Riba

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