Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Strategien für die Pfannenrevision

Strategies for cup revision

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Die Orthopädie Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Die Hüftpfannenrevision kann von einfachen Eingriffen mit Verwendung von Standardimplantaten bis hin zu komplexen Versorgungen mit Nutzung von Kombinationen aus Spezialpfannen, metallischen Augmenten, Knochentransplantaten und Abstützschalen reichen. Die suffiziente Wiederherstellung von Biomechanik und Funktion des Hüftgelenks mit dem Ziel der Rekonstruktion des originären Drehzentrums sowie die stabile Implantatverankerung stellt dabei nicht selten eine Herausforderung dar. Diese Arbeit soll eine Übersicht verschiedener zur Verfügung stehender Techniken mit den dazugehörigen Implantat- und Verankerungsstrategien sowie den jeweiligen klinischen Ergebnissen in Abhängigkeit von der azetabulären Defektsituation geben.

Abstract

Hip arthroplasty revision management can range from simple procedures using standard implants to complex surgical interventions requiring the combined use of revision cups, metal augments, bone grafts, and antiprotrusio cages. The adequate restoration of biomechanics and function of the hip joint with reconstruction of the original center of rotation can be challenging. We present an overview of various available techniques with the associated implant and anchoring strategies and the respective clinical results depending on the acetabular defect situation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3
Abb. 4

Abbreviations

IBG:

„Impaction bone grafting“

PE :

Polyethylen

TM :

Trabekuläres Metall

Literatur

  1. Endoprothesenregister Deutschland (EPRD) Jahresbericht 2021. https://www.eprd.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Dateien/Publikationen/Berichte/Jahresbericht2021_2021-10-25_F.pdf. Zugegriffen: 11. Dez. 2021

  2. Gu A, Adriani M, Malahias MA, Fassihi SC, Nocon AA, Bostrom MP, Sculco PK (2020) Reliability and validity of acetabular and femoral bone loss classification systems in total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review. HSS J 16(3):288–295. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11420-020-09766-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Paprosky WG, Perona PG, Lawrence JM (1994) Acetabular defect classification and surgical reconstruction in revision arthroplasty. A 6‑year follow-up evaluation. J Arthroplasty 9(1):33–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-5403(94)90135-x

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Beaulé PE, Ebramzadeh E, Le Duff M, Prasad R, Amstutz HC (2004) Cementing a liner into a stable cementless acetabular shell: the double-socket technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86:929–934

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Callaghan JJ, Parvizi J, Novak CC et al (2004) A constrained liner cemented into a secure cementless acetabular shell. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86:2206–2211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bellova P, Koch F, Stiehler M, Hartmann A, Fritzsche H, Günther KP, Goronzy J (2021) Cementation of a dual mobility cup in a well-fixed acetabular component—A reliable option in revision total hip arthroplasty? BMC Musculoskelet Disord 22(1):982–924

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Van Eecke E, Vanbiervliet J, Dauwe J, Mulier M (2020) Comparison of constrained acetabular components and dual mobility cups in revision total hip arthroplasty: a literature review. Hip Pelvis 32(2):59–69. https://doi.org/10.5371/hp.2020.32.2.59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Tucker K, Günther KP, Kjaersgaard-Andersen P, Lützner J, Kretzer JP, Nelissen RGHH, Lange T, Zagra L (2021) EFORT recommendations for off-label use, mix & match and mismatch in hip and knee arthroplasty. EFORT Open Rev 6(11):982–1005. https://doi.org/10.1302/2058-5241.6.210080

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Shen X, Qin Y, Li Y, Tang X, Xiao J (2022) Trabecular metal versus non-trabecular metal acetabular components for acetabular revision surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Surg 100:106597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2022.106597

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Della Valle CJ, Berger RA, Rosenberg AG, Galante JO (2004) Cementless acetabular reconstruction in revision total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 420:96–100. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-200403000-00013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Volpin A, Konan S, Biz C, Tansey RJ, Haddad FS (2019) Reconstruction of failed acetabular component in the presence of severe acetabular bone loss: a systematic review. Musculoskelet Surg 103(1):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12306-018-0539-7

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. von Roth P, Abdel MP, Harmsen WS, Berry DJ (2015) Uncemented jumbo cups for revision total hip arthroplasty: a concise follow-up, at a mean of twenty years, of a previous report. J Bone Joint Surg Am 97(4):284–287. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.N.00798

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Fickert S, Pfeiffer S, Walter A, Günther KP, Witzleb WC (2010) Acetabular revision surgery with the oblong revision cup: clinical and radiological results of 217 cases. Orthopade 39(5):503–511. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00132-009-1527-2

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. García-Rey E, Fernández-Fernández R, Durán D, Madero R (2013) Reconstruction of the rotation center of the hip after oblong cups in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Traumatol 14(1):39–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Gallart X, Fernández-Valencia JA, Riba J, Bori G, García S, Tornero E, Combalía A (2016) Trabecular titanium™ cups and augments in revision total hip arthroplasty: Clinical results, radiology and survival outcomes. Hip Int 26(5):486–491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Beckmann NA, Bitsch RG, Janoszka MB, Klotz MC, Bruckner T, Jaeger S (2018) Treatment of high-grade acetabular defects: do porous titanium cups provide better stability than traditional titanium cups when combined with an augment? J Arthroplasty 33(6):1838–1843. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2018.01.068

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Abolghasemian M, Tangsataporn S, Sternheim A, Backstein D, Safir O, Gross AE (2013) Combined trabecular metal acetabular shell and augment for acetabular revision with substantial bone loss: a mid-term review. Bone Joint J 95-B(2):166–172. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.95B2.30608

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Grappiolo G, Loppini M, Longo UG, Traverso F, Mazziotta G, Denaro V (2015) Trabecular metal augments for the management of Paprosky type III defects without pelvic discontinuity. J Arthroplasty 30(6):1024–1029. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2015.01.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Whitehouse MR, Masri BA, Duncan CP, Garbuz DS (2015) Continued good results with modular trabecular metal augments for acetabular defects in hip arthroplasty at 7 to 11 years. Clin Orthop Relat Res 473(2):521–527. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-014-3861-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Jenkins DR, Odland AN, Sierra RJ, Hanssen AD, Lewallen DG (2017) Minimum five-year outcomes with porous tantalum acetabular cup and augment construct in complex revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 99(10):e49. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.16.00125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Evola FR, Costarella L, Evola G, Barchitta M, Agodi A, Sessa G (2017) Acetabular revisions using porous tantalum components: A retrospective study with 5–10 years follow-up. World J Orthop 8(7):553–560. https://doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v8.i7.553

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Flecher X, Appy B, Parratte S, Ollivier M, Argenson JN (2017) Use of porous tantalum components in Paprosky two and three acetabular revision. A minimum five-year follow-up of fifty one hips. Int Orthop 41(5):911–916. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-016-3312-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Eachempati KK, Malhotra R, Pichai S, Reddy AVG, Podhili Subramani AK, Gautam D, Bollavaram VR, Sheth NP (2018) Results of trabecular metal augments in Paprosky IIIA and IIIB defects: A multicentre study. Bone Joint J 100-B(7):903–908. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.100B7.BJJ-2017-1604.R1

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Löchel J, Janz V, Hipfl C, Perka C, Wassilew GI (2019) Reconstruction of acetabular defects with porous tantalum shells and augments in revision total hip arthroplasty at ten-year follow-up. Bone Joint J 101-B(3):311–316. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.101B3.BJJ-2018-0959.R1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Miettinen HJ, Miettinen SS, Kettunen JS, Jalkanen J, Kröger H (2021) Revision hip arthroplasty using a porous tantalum acetabular component. Hip Int 31(6):782–788. https://doi.org/10.1177/1120700020913294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Malahias MA, Mancino F, Gu A, Adriani M, De Martino I, Boettner F, Sculco PK (2022) Acetabular impaction grafting with mesh for acetabular bone defects: a systematic review. Hip Int 32(2):185–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/1120700020971851

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kostensalo I, Seppänen M, Virolainen P, Mokka J, Koivisto M, Mäkelä KT (2015) Acetabular reconstruction with impaction bone grafting and cemented polyethylene socket in total hip revision arthroplasty. Scand J Surg 104(4):267–272

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Hourscht C, Abdelnasser MK, Ahmad SS, Kraler L, Keel MJ, Siebenrock KA, Klenke FM (2017) Reconstruction of AAOS type III and IV acetabular defects with the Ganz reinforcement ring: high failure in pelvic discontinuity. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 137(8):1139–1148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-017-2731-x (Erratum in: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2019 Jan;139(1):147)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Paprosky W, Sporer S, O’Rourke MR (2006) The treatment of pelvic discontinuity with acetabular cages. Clin Orthop Relat Res 453:183–187. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000246530.52253.7b

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Beckmann NA, Weiss S, Klotz MC, Gondan M, Jaeger S, Bitsch RG (2014) Loosening after acetabular revision: comparison of trabecular metal and reinforcement rings. A systematic review. J Arthroplasty 29(1):229–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2013.04.035

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Roessler PP, Jaenisch M, Kuhlmann M, Wacker M, Wagenhäuser J, Gravius S, Wirtz DC (2019) The augment-and-modular-cage revision system for reconstruction of severe acetabular defects-two-year clinical and radiographic results. Int Orthop 43(10):2269–2278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Baecker H, Hardt S, Abdel MP, Perka C (2020) Tantalum augments combined with antiprotrusio cages for massive acetabular defects in revision arthroplasty. Arthroplast Today 6(4):704–709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artd.2020.07.039

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Mäkinen TJ, Abolghasemian M, Watts E, Fichman SG, Kuzyk P, Safir OA, Gross AE (2017) Management of massive acetabular bone defects in revision arthroplasty of the hip using a reconstruction cage and porous metal augment. Bone Joint J 99-B(5):607–613. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.99B5.BJJ-2014-0264.R3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Garceau SP, Warschawski Y, Joly D, Safir OE, Gross AE, Kuzyk PR (2022) Hip arthroplasty with the use of a reconstruction cage and porous metal augment to treat massive acetabular bone loss: a midterm follow-up. J Arthroplasty. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2022.02.111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Günther KP, Wegner T, Kirschner S, Hartmann A (2014) Modulare Defektrekonstruktion beim Pfannenwechsel mit Abstützschale und metallischen Augmenten : „Cage-and-Augment“-System [Modular reconstruction in acetabular revision with antiprotrusio cages and metal augments : the cage-and-augment system]. Oper Orthop Traumatol 26(2):141–155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00064-013-0271-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Bellova P, Grothe T, Reich M, Hartmann A, Günther KP, Stiehler M, Goronzy J (submitted) Treatment of severe acetabular defects with an antiprotrusio-cage and metal augments-presentation of mid-term clinical and radiographic results

  37. Kosashvili Y, Backstein D, Safir O, Lakstein D, Gross AE (2009) Acetabular revision using an anti-protrusion (ilio-ischial) cage and trabecular metal acetabular component for severe acetabular bone loss associated with pelvic discontinuity. J Bone Joint Surg Br 91(7):870–876. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.91B7.22181

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Boscainos PJ, Kellett CF, Maury AC, Backstein D, Gross AE (2007) Management of periacetabular bone loss in revision hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 465:159–165. https://doi.org/10.1097/BLO.0b013e3181560c6c

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Rogers BA, Whittingham-Jones PM, Mitchell PA, Safir OA, Bircher MD, Gross AE (2012) The reconstruction of periprosthetic pelvic discontinuity. J Arthroplasty 27(8):1499–1506.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2011.12.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Amenabar T, Rahman WA, Hetaimish BM, Kuzyk PR, Safir OA, Gross AE (2016) Promising mid-term results with a cup-cage construct for large acetabular defects and pelvic discontinuity. Clin Orthop Relat Res 474(2):408–414. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-015-4210-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Konan S, Duncan CP, Masri BA, Garbuz DS (2017) The cup-cage reconstruction for pelvic discontinuity has encouraging patient satisfaction and functional outcome at median 6‑year follow-up. Hip Int 27(5):509–513. https://doi.org/10.5301/hipint.5000480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Martin JR, Barrett I, Sierra RJ, Lewallen DG, Berry DJ (2017) Construct rigidity: keystone for treating pelvic discontinuity. J Bone Joint Surg Am 99(9):e43. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.16.00601

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Hipfl C, Janz V, Löchel J, Perka C, Wassilew GI (2018) Cup-cage reconstruction for severe acetabular bone loss and pelvic discontinuity: Mid-term results of a consecutive series of 35 cases. Bone Joint J 100-B(11):1442–1448. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.100B11.BJJ-2018-0481.R1

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Sporer SM, Bottros JJ, Hulst JB, Kancherla VK, Moric M, Paprosky WG (2012) Acetabular distraction: an alternative for severe defects with chronic pelvic discontinuity? Clin Orthop Relat Res 470(11):3156–3163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-012-2514-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Frenzel S, Horas K, Rak D, Boelch SP, Rudert M, Holzapfel BM (2020) Acetabular revision with intramedullary and extramedullary Iliac fixation for pelvic discontinuity. J Arthroplasty 35(12):3679–3685.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2020.06.067

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Gebert C, Gosheger G, Winkelmann W (2009) Hip transposition as a universal surgical procedure for periacetabular tumors of the pelvis. J Surg Oncol 99(3):169–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. De Martino I, Strigelli V, Cacciola G, Gu A, Bostrom MP, Sculco PK (2019) Survivorship and clinical outcomes of custom triflange acetabular components in revision total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review. J Arthroplasty 34(10):2511–2518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2019.05.032

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Nottrott M, Streitbürger A, Gosheger G, Dieckmann R, Gebert C, Henrichs MP, Hardes J (2010) Hemipelvectomy: What is important? OP-JOURNAL 26(3):192–195. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0030-1250544

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Gebert C, Wessling M, Hoffmann C, Roedl R, Winkelmann W, Gosheger G, Hardes J (2011) Hip transposition as a limb salvage procedure following the resection of periacetabular tumors. J Surg Oncol 103(3):269–275. https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.21820

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Chalidis BE, Ries MD (2009) High hip center bipolar hemiarthroplasty for non-reconstructable pelvic discontinuity. Acta Orthop 80(2):190–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Trabold B, Maderbacher G (2022) Perioperatives Management orthogeriatrischer Patienten für die Endoprothetik von Knie oder Hüfte. Orthopade 51(2):91–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Clarius M, Rackwitz L, Nöth U, Clarius J, Clarius LM (2022) Prästationäres Management in der Fast-Track-Endoprothetik. Orthopade. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00132-022-04246-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Joseph Z, Calvert N, Salmon M, Harper M, Swann A, Tan R, Blades K, Yates P (2020) Enhanced recovery principles applied to revision hip and knee arthroplasty leads to better patient outcomes. J Orthop 22:543–547

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Kuo FC, Aalirezaie A, Goswami K, Shohat N, Blevins K, Parvizi J (2019) Extended antibiotic prophylaxis confers no benefit following aseptic revision total hip arthroplasty: a matched case-controlled study. J Arthroplasty 34(11):2724–2729

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. UniversitätsCentrum für Orthopädie, Unfall- & Plastische Chirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Fetscherstr. 74, Haus 29, 01307, Dresden, Deutschland

    Maik Stiehler, Klaus-Peter Günther & Jens Goronzy

Authors
  1. Maik Stiehler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Klaus-Peter Günther
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jens Goronzy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maik Stiehler.

Ethics declarations

Interessenkonflikt

M. Stiehler, K.-P. Günther und J. Goronzy geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Für diesen Beitrag wurden von den Autoren keine Studien an Menschen oder Tieren durchgeführt. Für die aufgeführten Studien gelten die jeweils dort angegebenen ethischen Richtlinien.

Additional information

figure qr

QR-Code scannen & Beitrag online lesen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Stiehler, M., Günther, KP. & Goronzy, J. Strategien für die Pfannenrevision. Orthopädie 52, 12–20 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00132-022-04271-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00132-022-04271-4

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation