Objective To investigate the effectiveness of acetabular revision using jumbo cementless cups. Methods Between May 1996 and May 2011, 35 patients (35 hips) underwent an acetabular revision with jumbo cementless cups, and the clinical data were retrospectively analyzed. There were 12 males and 23 females, with an average age of 64.8 years (range, 47-79 years). The time from hip arthroplaty to revision was 1-15 years (mean, 9.7 years). The causes for revision were aseptic loosening in 32 cases, femoral periprosthetic fracture (Vancouver type B3) in 2 cases, and low toxicity infection in 1 case. According to the classification of acetabular bony deficiencies of the American Association of Orthopedic Surgeon (AAOS), 6 cases were classified as type I, 9 cases as type II, and 20 cases as type III; according to the classification proposed by Paprosky, 5 cases were rated as type II A, 9 cases as type II B, 13 cases as type II C, and 8 cases as type III A. The primary hip arthroplasty cups had an outside diameter of 46-52 mm (mean, 49.6 mm), and the revision cups had an outside diameter of 56-68 mm (mean, 60.4 mm). Harris score was used for hip function evaluation, and X-ray films were taken for imaging evaluation. Results Healing of incision by first intention was obtained in all patients; without infection or neurovascular injury. Prosthetic dislocation was observed in 1 case at 20 days after operation, and was cured after expectant treatment. One patient died at 6 years after operation, and the other 34 patients were followed up 2-14 years (mean, 8.4 years). The Harris score was significantly increased from 46.4 ± 13.4 at preoperation to 90.4 ± 3.6 at last follow-up (t=18.76, P=0.00). The distance between acetabular rotation centre and teardrop line was significantly decreased, and the distance between acetabular rotation centre and lateral teardrop was significantly increased when compared with preoperative ones (P lt; 0.05). Only 1 patient received second revision for aseptic loosening after 10 years; no continuous radiolucent line, prosthetic dislocation, and osteolysis was found, and bony ingrowth was shown in the other patients. Conclusion Jumbo cementless cup for acetabular revision can achieve good effectiveness for having the advantages of simple operation, less bone grafts, and good recovery of the acetabular rotation centre.
Objective To investigate the early-term effectiveness of extra-large uncemented acetabular components for hip revision in the treatment of extensive acetabular bone defect. Methods Between September 2008 and May 2012, 13 patients (13 hips) with extensive acetabular bone defect underwent first hip revision using extra-large uncemented acetabular components (Jumbo cup). The diameter of Jumbo cup was larger than or equal to 64 mm for male and 60 mm for female. There were 4 males and 9 females with an average age of 64.7 years (range, 58-84 years). The period from primary arthroplasty to revision was 3-16 years (mean, 9.6 years). According to Paprosky classification, acetabular bone defect was rated as stage IIA in 2 cases, as stage IIB in 5 cases, as stage IIC in 4 cases, and as stage IIIA in 2 cases. The preoperative vertical distance from the center of involved femoral head to interteardrop line was (21.2 ± 6.1) mm longer than that of normal side. The Harris score and the rotation center of hip were evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively. Results Healing of incision by first intention was obtained in all patients, and no complication of dislocation, infection, and injury of sciatic nerve or femoral nerve occurred. The duration of follow-up ranged from 13 to 40 months (mean, 23.5 months). Partial or complete pain relief was achieved in all patients. The other patients could walk independently and restored to their routine jobs except for 1 case of hemiplegia caused by acute cerebral infarction at 3 months after surgery. In 5 patients with bone implantation, with the prolonging follow-up, the allograft could integrate with the host bone without absorption, and the bone fusion time was 9-35 months (mean, 14.5 months). At last follow-up, the X-ray films revealed that the vertical distance from the center of involved femoral head to interteardrop line was (6.0 ± 3.1) mm longer than that of normal side, which was significantly reduced when compared with preoperative value (t=11.13, P=0.00). No periprosthetic transparent region, prosthesis displacement, or screw breakage occurred. The Harris score was significantly increased from 30.4 ± 8.8 preoperatively to 85.1 ± 3.2 at last follow-up (t=22.11, P=0.00). Conclusion The application of extra-large uncemented acetabular components could be an effective technique for the reconstruction of extensive acetabular bone defect, and gain a good early-term effectiveness. The long-term survival rate of prostheses needs to be followed up.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of cemented polyethylene liner technique in hip revision.MethodsBased on inclusion criteria, the clinical data of 26 patients who were undergone hip revision between January 2011 and December 2013, were retrospectively reviewed. Among them, 14 cases were treated with isolated liner exchange (group A) and 12 cases were treated with cemented polyethylene liner technique (group B). There was no significant difference in gender, age, the time from primary total hip arthroplasty to revision, and the preoperative Harris score between 2 groups (P>0.05). The post-operative Harris score and complications were compared between 2 groups, and X-ray findings of the hip joint were recorded to review the position of hip components.ResultsAll patients were followed up 4.4-6.4 years (mean, 5.4 years). Except for two femoral fractures during the revision (1 in each group), there was no other complication in 2 groups. The hip pain relieved and the lame gait corrected in 2 groups. The hip’s function of 2 groups improved gradually after operation, with a better Harris score at 3 months and the best at last follow-up, compared with preoperative scores (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in Harris score at difference time points after operation between 2 group (P>0.05). X-ray films showed no dislocation, aseptic loosening, and other interface related complication.ConclusionFor the cases without the chance to do change liner, cemented polyethylene liner technique has a good effectiveness. But restrict patient selection should be considered before hip revision.