Cup-on-cup technique: a reliable management solution for severe acetabular bone loss in revision total hip replacement

Abstract

Background:

The management of acetabular bone loss is a challenging problem in revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA). The goals of treatment are a stable acetabular fixation, implant stability, and restoration of hip centre of rotation.

This study aims to report clinical, radiological outcomes and complications at short-term to mid-term follow-up of the cup-on-cup technique in the management of severe acetabular bone loss in rTHA.

Methods:

We retrospectively reviewed the records of patient receiving rTHA performed with double porous tantalum cup technique in a single Joint Replacement Unit from 2014 to 2017. Objective and subjective clinical scores (Harris Hip Score, Oxford Hip Score, and visual analogue scale), radiological parameters (centre of rotation, leg-length discrepancy, heterotopic ossification, osseointegration, loosening and radiolucencies) and complications were recorded. We analysed the implant survival rate and periprosthetic joint infection rate.

Results:

We included 9 patients (9 hips) with a mean follow-up of 35.3 ± 10.8 months. Functional scores showed a statistically significant improvement at the final follow-up (p < 0.01). All patients rated their surgery as satisfactory. The cup-on-cup construct demonstrated radiological osseointegration with the centre of rotation restoration and leg length discrepancy improvement. In 1 patient, periprosthetic joint infection was diagnosed and treated with suppressive antibiotic therapy. No patients underwent acetabular components revision surgery for any reason.

Conclusions:

Cup-on-cup technique is a valid and safe solution for reconstruction of selected Paprosky type IIIA and IIIB bone defects with satisfactory clinical and radiographic results at short-term and mid-term follow-up.

Keywords

Acetabular bone defects cup-on-cup technique Paprosky IIIA–IIIB porous tantalum revision total hip arthroplasty

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Kurtz

Ong

Lau

, et al. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007; 89: 780–785.

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.

Bobyn

Stackpool

Hacking

, et al. Characteristics of bone ingrowth and interface mechanics of a new porous tantalum biomaterial. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1999; 81: 907–914.

Meneghini

Meyer

Buckley

, et al. Mechanical stability of novel highly porous metal acetabular components in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2010; 25: 337–341.

Paprosky

Perona

Lawrence

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

Webb

McGill

Palumbo

, et al. The double-cup construct: a novel treatment strategy for the management of Paprosky IIIA and IIIB acetabular defects. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32(9S): S225–S231.

Blumenfeld

Bargar

. Surgical technique: a cup-in-cup technique to restore offset in severe protrusio acetabular defects. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2012; 470: 435–441.

Loppini

Schiavi

Rocca

, et al. Double-trabecular metal cup technique for the management of Paprosky type III defects without pelvic discontinuity. Hip Int 2018; 28(Suppl.): 66–72.

DeLee

Charnley

. Radiological demarcation of cemented sockets in total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1976; 121: 20–32.

10.

Hugg

Alton

Gee

. In brief: classifications in brief: Brooker classification of heterotopic ossification after total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2015; 473: 2154–2157.

11.

Widmer

Zurfluh

Morscher

. Load transfer and fixation mode of press-fit acetabular sockets. J Arthroplasty 2002; 17: 926–935.

12.

Cavagnaro

Chiarlone

Divano

, et al. Primary cementless stems in septic hip revision: Indications and results. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 2019;27: 2309499019853999.

13.

Burastero

Basso

Carrega

, et al. Acetabular spacers in 2-stage hip revision: is it worth it? A single-centre retrospective study. Hip Int 2017; 27: 187–192.

14.

Moore

McAuley

Young

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

15.

Jain

Grogan

Giannoudis

. Options for managing severe acetabular bone loss in revision hip arthroplasty. A systematic review. Hip Int 2014; 24: 109–122.

16.

Volpin

Konan

Biz

, et al. Reconstruction of failed acetabular component in the presence of severe acetabular bone loss: a systematic review. Musculoskelet Surg 2019; 103: 1–13.

17.

Nwankwo

Ries

. Do jumbo cups cause hip center elevation in revision THA? A radiographic evaluation. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014; 472: 2793–2798.

18.

Beckmann

Bitsch

Gondan

, et al. Comparison of the stability of three fixation techniques between porous metal acetabular components and augments. Bone Joint Res 2018; 7: 282–288.

19.

Berasi

4th Berend

Adams

, et al. Are custom triflange acetabular components effective for reconstruction of catastrophic bone loss? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2015; 473: 528–535.

20.

Hanzlik

Day

; Acknowledged Contributors: Ingrowth Retrieval Study Group. Bone ingrowth in well-fixed retrieved porous tantalum implants. J Arthroplasty 2013; 28: 922–927.

21.

Burastero

Cavagnaro

Chiarlone

, et al. The use of tantalum metaphyseal cones for the management of severe bone defects in septic knee revision. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33: 3739–3745.

22.

Wegrzyn

Thoreson

Guyen

, et al. Cementation of a dual-mobility acetabular component into a well-fixed metal shell during revision total hip arthroplasty: a biomechanical validation. J Orthop Res 2013; 31: 991–997.

23.

Callaghan

Hennessy

Liu

, et al. Cementing acetabular liners into secure cementless shells for polyethylene wear provides durable mid-term. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2012; 470: 3142–3147.