Acetabular Cup Revision
3
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The use of acetabular cup revision arthroplasty is on the rise as demands for total hip arthroplasty, improved life expectancies, and the need for individual activity increase. For an acetabular cup revision to be successful, the cup should gain stable fixation within the remaining supportive bone of the acetabulum. Since the patient’s remaining supportive acetabular bone stock plays an important role in the success of revision, accurate classification of the degree of acetabular bone defect is necessary. The Paprosky classification system is most commonly used when determining the location and degree of acetabular bone loss. Common treatment options include: acetabular liner exchange, high hip center, oblong cup, trabecular metal cup with augment, bipolar cup, bulk structural graft, cemented cup, uncemented cup including jumbo cup, acetabular reinforcement device (cage), trabecular metal cup cage. The optimal treatment option is dependent upon the degree of the discontinuity, the amount of available bone stock and the likelihood of achieving stable fixation upon supportive host bone. To achieve successful acetabular cup revision, accurate evaluation of bone defect preoperatively and intraoperatively, proper choice of method of acetabular revision according to the evaluation of acetabular bone deficiency, proper technique to get primary stability of implant such as precise grafting technique, and stable fixation of implant are mandatory.
Abstract
The use of acetabular cup revision arthroplasty is on the rise as demands for total hip arthroplasty, improved life expectancies, and the need for individual activity increase. For an acetabular cup revision to be successful, the cup should gain stable fixation within the remaining supportive bone of the acetabulum. Since the patient’s remaining supportive acetabular bone stock plays an important role in the success of revision, accurate classification of the degree of acetabular bone defect is necessary. The Paprosky classification system is most commonly used when determining the location and degree of acetabular bone loss. Common treatment options include: acetabular liner exchange, high hip center, oblong cup, trabecular metal cup with augment, bipolar cup, bulk structural graft, cemented cup, uncemented cup including jumbo cup, acetabular reinforcement device (cage), trabecular metal cup cage. The optimal treatment option is dependent upon the degree of the discontinuity, the amount of available bone stock and the likelihood of achieving stable fixation upon supportive host bone. To achieve successful acetabular cup revision, accurate evaluation of bone defect preoperatively and intraoperatively, proper choice of method of acetabular revision according to the evaluation of acetabular bone deficiency, proper technique to get primary stability of implant such as precise grafting technique, and stable fixation of implant are mandatory.
참고문헌 (16)
- Kurtz S, "Prevalence of primary and revision total hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 1990 through 2002", J Bone Joint Surg Am, 87, pp.1487~1497 (2005)
- D’Antonio JA, "Classification and management of acetabular abnormalities in total hip arthroplasty", Clin Orthop Relat Res, (243), pp.126~137 (1989)
- Paprosky WG, "Acetabular defect classification and surgical reconstruction in revision arthroplasty. A 6-year follow-up evaluation", J Arthroplasty, 9, pp.33~44 (1994)
- Sporer SM, "The treatment of pelvic discontinuity during acetabular revision", J Arthroplasty, 20(4 Suppl 2), pp.79~84 (2005)
- Terefenko KM, "Polyethylene liner exchange for excessive wear and osteolysis", J Arthroplasty, 17, pp.798~804 (2002)
- Gustke KA, "Use of jumbo cups for revision of acetabulae with large bony defects", J Arthroplasty, 29, pp.199~203 (2014)
- von Roth P, "Uncemented jumbo cups for revision total hip arthroplasty: a concise followup, at a mean of twenty years, of a previous report", J Bone Joint Surg Am, 97, pp.284~287 (2015)
- Kerboull M, "The Kerboull acetabular reinforcement device in major acetabular reconstructions", Clin Orthop Relat Res, (378), pp.155~168 (2000)
- Bostrom MP, "Acetabular revision with the Contour antiprotrusio cage: 2-to 5-year followup", Clin Orthop Relat Res, 453, pp.188~194 (2006)
- Okano K, "Revision with impacted bone allografts and the Kerboull cross plate for massive bone defect of the acetabulum", J Arthroplasty, 25, pp.594~599 (2010)
- Del Gaizo DJ, "Tantalum augments for Paprosky IIIA defects remain stable at midterm followup", Clin Orthop Relat Res, 470, pp.395~401 (2012)
- Flecher X, "Management of severe bone loss in acetabular revision using a trabecular metal shell", J Arthroplasty, 23, pp.949~955 (2008)
- Lingaraj K, "The management of severe acetabular bone defects in revision hip arthroplasty using modular porous metal components", J Bone Joint Surg Br, 91, pp.1555~1560 (2009)
- Weeden SH, "The use of tantalum porous metal implants for Paprosky 3A and 3B defects", J Arthroplasty, 22(6 Suppl 2), pp.151~155 (2007)
- Abolghasemian M, "The challenge of pelvic discontinuity: cup-cage reconstruction does better than conventional cages in mid-term", Bone Joint J, 96-B, pp.195~200 (2014)
- Taunton MJ, "Pelvic discontinuity treated with custom triflange component : a reliable option", Clin Orthop Relat Res, 470, pp.428~434 (2012)