Reconstruction of acetabulum in revision total hip arthroplasty for pelvic discontinuity: report of a difficult case requiring four revision arthroplasty
© The Author(s). 2016
Received: 26 January 2016
Accepted: 27 April 2016
Published: 11 May 2016
Massive bone defects of the acetabulum with pelvic discontinuity are one of the major problems in revision total hip arthroplasty. Several techniques have been described for repair of acetabular defect; however, reconstruction of acetabulum with massive bone defect is still a major problem. We describe a patient who required four revision total hip arthroplasty during a 24-year period.
The acetabulum with pelvic discontinuity was successfully reconstructed by stabilization of the posterior column with a plate commonly used for fracture treatment, and stabilization of the anterior column by reinforcement device commonly used for acetabular reconstruction. Fixation of both acetabular columns provided significant improvement of component stability.
In the case of pelvic discontinuity with massive acetabular bone defect, reconstruction by stabilizing both acetabular columns using reconstruction plate and KT plate is one of the better surgical options.
KeywordsRevision total hip arthroplasty Reconstruction Acetabulum Bone grafting Pelvic discontinuity Surgical technique
Acetabular bone defect is one of the major difficulties in acetabular reconstruction in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). Several techniques have been described for the repair of acetabular bone defect, including the use of cemented cup onto the structural bone graft (Paprosky and Magnus 1994), bilobed cup (Moskal et al. 2008), metal mesh (Jasty and Harris 1988), acetabular cage (Sembrano and Cheng 2008), Müller reinforcement ring (Stöckl et al. 1997), and reinforcement plate, such as Kerboull or KT plate (Okano et al. 2010; Kawanabe et al. 2007; Baba and Shitoto 2010) with or without allografting. In 120 revision THA cases conducted in our department, only two demonstrated acetabular bone defect with pelvic discontinuity. While the frequency of pelvic discontinuity in the revision THA is within a clinically acceptable range, reconstruction of the acetabulum with massive bone defect, including pelvic discontinuity, is a still perplexing problem in revision THA despite the currently available solutions. In this short communication, we describe acetabular reconstruction surgical technique for periprosthetic pelvic discontinuity.
Reconstruction of the acetabulum with considerable pelvic bone defects in revision hip arthroplasty requires complex surgical techniques. While bone grafting to the massive bone defects is a commonly used procedure, it is sometimes marred with failure. For examples, van Haaren et al. (2007) reported failure of the procedure in 34 % of patients with AAOS type III or IV defects that underwent revision THA during an average follow-up period of 7.2 years. They used impaction bone grafting with metal meshes to cover segmental and/or cavitary bone defect, and fixed the acetabular cup with cement on the graft bone. They argued that the reason for the high failure rate of cemented impaction grafting was related to the extent of the bone defect, particularly in case of lack of bony support behind the graft. In contrast, several other groups (Garcia-Cimbrelo et al. 2010; Ochs et al. 2008) reported a low failure rate of cemented cup with impaction bone grafting for large acetabular defects. For example, Garcia-Cimbrelo et al. (2010) described stability of the cemented cup with impaction allografting except for pelvic discontinuity. Ochs et al. (2008) concluded in their review of the literature that the incorporation rate of impacted allograft for massive bone defects depends on the use of cages or plates, and recommended complex reconstructive techniques using cages or plates for major bone defects associated with pelvic discontinuity.
The importance of cup position, which correlates with the outcome of revision surgery, was stressed in previous reports, notwithstanding operative procedure (Stöckl et al. 1997; Okano et al. 2010; Baba and Shitoto 2010; Garcia-Cimbrelo et al. 2010). A reinforcement plate or ring, such as Kerboull plate, KT plate, or Müller ring must be positioned as close as possible to the original acetabular position with morselized and/or structural bone grafting to prevent failure (Stöckl et al. 1997; Okano et al. 2010; Baba and Shitoto 2010). We experienced dislodgement of the cemented cup from the Müller ring after the third-revision THA. In this regard, Stöckl et al. (1997) described that lateral and cranial positioning of the Müller ring was associated with a high loosening rate. In addition, as we described in previous three-dimensional finite element analysis of the acetabular cup (Oki et al. 2004), the direction of the maximal resultant force acting on the hip is only about 10 degrees medial from the vertical direction in a frontal plane above the centre of the femoral head, and the shear stress on the surface of the polyethylene cup increases significantly with increases in abduction angle. We also speculated that the reason for the dislodgement of the cemented cup was the lateral positioning of the cemented cup relative to the original acetabular position, with no adequate coverage of the weight-bearing portion. This was mainly due to the large distance between the Müller ring and the host bone, the small vertical setting angle of the support ring, and instability of the region of pelvic discontinuity due to inadequate stabilization.
Pelvic discontinuity is a severe form of acetabular deficiency defined as complete separation of the superior and inferior hemipelvis. The reported rate of discontinuity encountered in revision arthroplasty ranges from 1 to 8 % of all acetabular revision s performed (van Haaren et al. 2007; Rogers et al. 2012; Gililland et al. 2013). Historically, pelvic discontinuity used to be treated by stabilization of acetabular component with bulk allografting (Paprosky and Magnus 1994). However, high failure rates of such allografting prompted various revision strategies (Gililland et al. 2013). Before the fourth revision surgery, we planned stabilizing both the anterior and posterior columns of the acetabulum similar to the treatment used for transverse acetabular fracture (Uchida et al. 2013). Gililland et al. (2013) emphasized in their biomechanical study that fixation of both columns provided significant improvement of component stability. Schwarzkopf et al. (2015) described that the use of porous metal components had very promising results because of the biological fixation. We agree with their opinion, however, it is difficult to use the cementless cup in the cases of pelvic discontinuity with massive bone defect. In our case, with massive acetabular bone defect, we stabilized posterior column by reconstruction plate, and then, stabilized anterior column by KT plate. We considered that this procedure was valuable to stabilize both columns through the single posterior approach.
We described here an educational case of four-revision THA. In the case of pelvic discontinuity with massive acetabular bone defect, reconstruction by stabilizing both acetabular columns using reconstruction plate and KT plate is one of the better surgical options.
YK designed the study. YK, HO, and HN drafted the manuscript. YK, KN, and DS performed surgical treatment. YK, HO, KT, and TM planned the surgical methods. NT drew schemas. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
We would like to convey our deep thankfulness and unfathomable regard to Emeritus Professor Hisatoshi Baba, University of Fukui, Fukui, Japan. He gave us invaluable comments to improve the quality of the paper.
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Written informed consent was obtained from the patient for publication of this report.
All procedures performed in this report were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
- Baba T, Shitoto K (2010) Revision of total hip arthroplasty using the Kerboull and KT plates. Int Orthop 34:341–347View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- D’Antonio JA (1992) Periprosthetic bone loss of the acetabulum. Classification and management. Orthop Clin North Am 23:279–290Google Scholar
- Garcia-Cimbrelo E, Cruz-Pardos A, Garcia-Rey E, Ortega-Chamarro J (2010) The survival and fate of acetabular reconstruction with impaction grafting for large defects. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468:3304–3313View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Gililland JM, Anderson LA, Henninger HB, Kubiak EN, Peters CL (2013) Biomechanical analysis of acetabular revision constructs: is pelvic discontinuity best treated with bicolumnar or traditional unicolumnar fixation? J Arthroplasty 28:178–186View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Jasty M, Harris WH (1988) Results of total hip reconstruction using acetabular mesh in patients with central acetabular deficiency. Clin Orthop Relat Res 237:142–149Google Scholar
- Kawanabe K, Akiyama H, Onishi E, Nakamura T (2007) Revision total hip replacement using the Kerboull acetabular reinforcement device with morsellised or bulk graft: results at a mean follow-up of 8.7 years. J Bone Joint Surg 89B:26–31View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Moskal JT, Higgins ME, Shen J (2008) Type III acetabular defect revision with bilobed components: five-year results. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466:691–695View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Ochs BG, Schmid U, Rieth J, Ateschrang A, Weise K, Ochs U (2008) Acetabular bone reconstruction in revision arthroplasty: a comparison of freeze-dried, irradiated and chemically-treated allograft vitalised with autologous marrow versus frozen non-irradiated allograft. J Bone Joint Surg 90B:1164–1171View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Okano K, Miyata N, Enomoto H, Osaki M, Shindo H (2010) Revision with impacted bone allografts and the Kerboull cross plate for massive bone defect of the acetabulum. J Arthroplasty 25:594–599View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Oki H, Ando M, Omori H, Okumura Y, Negoro K, Uchida K, Baba H (2004) Relationship between vertical orientation and stability of acetabular component in the dysplastic hip simulated by nonlinear three-dimensional finite element method. Artif Organs 28:1050–1054View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Paprosky WG, Magnus RE (1994) Principles of bone grafting in revision total hip arthroplasty. Acetabular technique. Clin Orthop Relat Res 298:147–155Google Scholar
- Rogers BA, Whittingham-Jones PM, Mitchell PA, Safir OA, Bircher MD, Gross AE (2012) The reconstruction of periprosthetic pelvic discontinuity. J Arthroplasty 27:1499–1506View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Schwarzkopf R, Ihn HE, Ries MD (2015) Pelvic discontinuity: modern techniques and outcomes for treating pelvic disassociation. Hip Int 25:368–374View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Sembrano JN, Cheng EY (2008) Acetabular cage survival and analysis of factors related to failure. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466:1657–1665View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Stöckl B, Beerkotte J, Krismer M, Fischer M, Bauer R (1997) Results of the Müller acetabular reinforcement ring in revision arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 116:55–59View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Uchida K, Kokubo Y, Yayama T, Hideaki N, Miyazaki T, Negoro K, Takeno K, Sawaguchi T, Watanabe S, Sugita D, Takeura N, Yoshida A, Baba H (2013) Fracture of the acetabulum: a retrospective review of ninety-one patients treated at a single institution. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 23:155–163View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- van Haaren EH, Heyligers IC, Alexander FG, Wuisman PI (2007) High rate of failure of impaction grafting in large acetabular defects. J Bone Joint Surg 89B:296–300View ArticleGoogle Scholar