In conjunction with impaction bone grafting (IBG), metal meshes have been proposed to minimise defects of the medial and superolateral walls in order to convert combined complex uncontained segmental defects into contained cavitary defects to facilitate IBG.
Methods:
The US National Library of Medicine (PubMed/MEDLINE), EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were queried for publications from January 1980 to March 2019 utilising keywords pertinent to total hip arthroplasty (THA), acetabular impaction bone grafting, clinical or functional outcomes, revision THA, or postoperative complications.
Results:
7 articles were found to be suitable for inclusion in the present study. The mean modified Coleman methodology score for methodological deficiencies of the studies was 45.3 (range 38–59). Severe acetabular bone loss was present in 56% of cases having moderate bone loss in 18%, and mild in 26%. The all-cause reoperation rate was 7.4%, while the all-cause revision rate of the acetabular component was 6.2%.
Conclusions:
IBG with mesh is effective for selected patients with acetabular bone defects. Most patients with moderate bone loss as well as selected patients with large superolateral defects can be successfully treated with IBG combined with mesh. There is limited data to show that IBG with mesh might be associated with decreased survival rates in patients with severe lateral defects (Paprosky IIIA) combined with ischial or medial wall osteolysis who require combined medial and lateral meshes. In addition, patients with severe superomedial migration of the cup (Paprosky IIIB) should not be treated with IBG and mesh.
MaruyamaMWakabayashiSOtaH, et al. Reconstruction of the shallow acetabulum with a combination of autologous bulk and impaction bone grafting fixed by cement. Clin Orthop Relat Res2017; 475: 387–395.
2.
MigaudHCommonHGirardJ, et al. Acetabular reconstruction using porous metallic material in complex revision total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res2019; 105(1S): S53–S61.
3.
KimYH.Acetabular cup revision. Hip Pelvis2017; 29: 155–158.
4.
ZhouBZhouYYangD, et al. The utilization of metal augments allows better biomechanical reconstruction of the hip in revision total hip arthroplasty with severe acetabular defects: a comparative study. J Arthroplasty2018; 33: 3724–3733.
5.
Fernández-FairenMMurciaABlancoA, et al. Revision of failed total hip arthroplasty acetabular cups to porous tantalum components: a 5-year follow-up study. J Arthroplasty2010; 25: 865–872.
6.
ShethNPNelsonCLSpringerBD, et al. Acetabular bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty: evaluation and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg2013; 21: 128–139.
7.
SchreursBWKeurentjesJCGardeniersJW, 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 Br2009; 91: 1148–1153.
UllmarkGObrantKJ.Histology of impacted bone-graft incorporation. J Arthroplasty2002; 17: 150–157.
10.
BumaPDonkSSlooffTJ, et al. Bone graft incorporation after reconstruction of bony defects with impacted morselized bone graft. Histology of animals and patients. Ortop Traumatol Rehabil2001; 3: 41–47.
11.
García-CimbreloECruz-PardosAGarcia-ReyE, et al. The survival and fate of acetabular reconstruction with impaction grafting for large defects. Clin Orthop Relat Res2010; 468: 3304–3313.
12.
Van HaarenEHHeyligersICAlexanderFG, et al. High rate of failure of impaction grafting in large acetabular defects. J Bone Joint Surg Br2007; 89: 296–300.
13.
RigbyMKennyPJSharpR, et al. Acetabular impaction grafting in total hip replacement. Hip Int2011; 21: 399–408.
SambandamSNGulAPriyankaP.Analysis of methodological deficiencies of studies reporting surgical outcome following cemented total-joint arthroplasty of trapezio-metacarpal joint of the thumb. Int Orthop2007; 31: 639–645.
16.
ColoELeendersLARijnenWH, et al. Lateral rim mesh in primary total hip arthroplasty. Bone Joint J2019; 101–B: 96–103.
17.
WaddellBSBoettnerFGonzalez Della ValleA.Favorable early results of impaction bone grafting with reinforcement mesh for the treatment of Paprosky 3B acetabular defects. J Arthroplasty2017; 32: 919–923.
18.
García-ReyEMaderoRGarcía-CimbreloE.THA revisions using impaction allografting with mesh is durable for medial but not lateral acetabular defects. Clin Orthop Relat Res2015; 473: 3882–3891.
19.
IwaseTMoritaDItoT, et al. Favorable results of primary total hip arthroplasty with acetabular impaction bone grafting for large segmental bone defects in dysplastic hips. J Arthroplasty2016; 31: 2221–2226.
20.
WilsonMJWhitehouseSLHowellJR, et al. The results of acetabular impaction grafting in 129 primary cemented total hip arthroplasties. J Arthroplasty2013; 28: 1394–1400.
21.
VäänänenPPajamäkiIPaakkalaA, et al. The use of a biodegradable mesh plate to augment grafting of an acetabular defect: laboratory investigation and clinical pilot study. J Bone Joint Surg Br2010; 92: 179–185.
22.
ButtaroMACombaFPussoR, et al. Acetabular revision with metal mesh, impaction bone grafting, and a cemented cup. Clin Orthop Relat Res2008; 466: 2482–2490.
23.
D’AntonioJACapelloWNBordenLS, et al. Classification and management of acetabular abnormalities in total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res1989; 243: 126–137.
24.
SlooffTJSchimmelJWBumaP.Cemented fixation with bone grafts. Orthop Clin North Am1993; 24: 667–677.
25.
van EgmondNDe KamDCGardeniersJW, et al. Revisions of extensive acetabular defects with impaction grafting and a cement cup. Clin Orthop Relat Res2011; 469: 562–573.
26.
SchmalzriedTPHarrisWH.The Harris-Galante porous-coated acetabular component with screw fixation. Radiographic analysis of eighty-three primary hip replacements at a minimum of five years. J Bone Joint Surg Am1992; 74: 1130–1139.
27.
HodgkinsonJPShelleyPWroblewskiBM.The correlation between the roentgenographic appearance and operative findings at the bone-cement junction of the socket in Charnley low friction arthroplasties. Clin Orthop Relat Res1988; 228: 105–109.
28.
NoordinSMasriBADuncanCP, et al. Acetabular bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty: principles and techniques. Instr Course Lect2010; 59: 27–36.
29.
IssackPSNousiainenMBeksacB, et al. Acetabular component revision in total hip arthroplasty. Part II: management of major bone loss and pelvic discontinuity. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ)2009; 38: 550–556.
30.
WhaleyALBerryDJHarmsenWS.Extra-large uncemented hemispherical acetabular components for revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am2001; 83: 1352–1357.
31.
ParkBLiporaceFMarwinS.Managing acetabular defects in total hip arthroplasty. Bull Hosp Jt Dis (2013)2017; 75: 37–46.
32.
HarrisWHHamptonBJ.Total hip arthroplasty in the management of arthritis secondary to developmental dysplasia of the hip. In: CallaghanJJRosenbergAGRubashHE (eds) The adult hip, 2. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2007, p.1127.
33.
Sanchez-SoteloJBerryDJTrousdaleRT, et al. Surgical treatment of developmental dysplasia of the hip in adults: II. Arthroplasty options. J Am Acad Orthop Surg2002; 10: 334–344.
34.
PagnanoWHanssenADLewallenDG, et al. The effect of superior placement of the acetabular component on the rate of loosening after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am1996; 78: 1004–1014.
35.
MacherasGAKaterosKKoutsostathisSD, et al. The trabecular metal monoblock acetabular component in patients with high congenital hip dislocation: a prospective study. J Bone Joint Surg Br2010; 92: 624–628.
36.
LingarajKTeoYHBergmanN.The management of severe acetabular bone defects in revision hip arthroplasty using modular porous metal components. J Bone Joint Surg Br2009; 91: 1555–1560.
37.
EachempatiKKMalhotraRPichaiS, et al. Results of trabecular metal augments in Paprosky IIIA and IIIB defects. Bone Joint J2018; 100–B: 903–908.
38.
MalahiasMAMaQLGuA, et al. Outcomes of acetabular reconstructions for the management of chronic pelvic discontinuity: a systematic review. J Arthroplasty2020; 35: 1145–1153.e2.
