Department of Orthopedics, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, 139# Middle Renmin Road, Changsha, 410011, Hunan, People's Republic of China.
Department of Orthopedics, Liuzhou General Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Liuzhou, 545000, Guangxi, People's Republic of China.
J Orthop Surg Res. 2020 Aug 6;15(1):301. doi: 10.1186/s13018-020-01828-x.
Revision surgery for complex acetabular defects is still technically challenging. In this study, we discussed and compared the clinical and radiological outcomes of revision surgery between two methods using double-trabecular metal (TM) cups alone or combined with impacting bone grafting (IBG).
The records of 18 patients (18 hips) who underwent revision surgery using double-trabecular metal (double-TM) cups between 2008 and 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. All the patients were diagnosed with Paprosky III acetabular defects. The acetabular defects were reconstructed by double-TM cups alone or in combination with IBG. We used the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), and Short Form 36 (SF-36) to evaluate the clinical outcomes. Pelvis plain X-ray was used to assess hip center of rotation (COR), abduction angle and anteversion angle of acetabular cup, and incorporation of the bone graft to host bone.
The median follow-up time was 61.0 (IQR 56.0 to 65.8) months. No patients underwent re-revision for loosening or any other reasons. Complications included 3 patients (16.7%) with early dislocation and 3 patients (16.7%) with delayed wound healing. The average mHHS and UCLA preoperatively were 44.1 ± 4.0 (range 35 to 50) and 2.6 ± 0.7 (range 2 to 4), respectively and at the last follow-up were 73.7 ± 4.2 (range 68 to 85) and 7.3 ± 0.5 (range 7 to 8), respectively. The mean SF-36 scores at the last follow-up were improved significantly than preoperative scores, especially in bodily pain category (P < 0.05). The average limb-length discrepancy (LLD) decreased significantly from 24.2 ± 2.6 (range 20 to 32) mm preoperatively to 5.8 ± 1.8 (range 3 to 9) mm at the last follow-up, respectively. However, there was no significant difference between two methods at the last follow-up in terms of mHHS, UCLA, SF-36, LLD, and hip COR (P > 0.05). Radiographic evaluation demonstrated bone graft incorporation in all hips in the follow-up.
Defect reconstruction using double-TM cups alone or combined with IBG are practical and reliable treatment options for Paprosky III acetabular defects without pelvic discontinuity. Nevertheless, high postoperative complication rate, especially in terms of dislocation, remains a challenge.
复杂髋臼缺损的翻修手术仍然具有技术挑战性。在这项研究中,我们讨论并比较了单独使用双小梁金属(TM)杯或联合打压植骨(IBG)两种方法进行翻修手术的临床和影像学结果。
回顾性分析 2008 年至 2016 年间使用双小梁金属(双-TM)杯进行翻修手术的 18 例(18 髋)患者的记录。所有患者均被诊断为 Paprosky III 型髋臼缺损。髋臼缺损采用双-TM 杯单独或联合 IBG 重建。我们使用改良 Harris 髋关节评分(mHHS)、加利福尼亚大学洛杉矶分校(UCLA)评分和健康调查简表 36(SF-36)评估临床结果。骨盆平片用于评估髋关节中心旋转(COR)、髋臼杯外展角和前倾角以及植骨与宿主骨的融合情况。
中位随访时间为 61.0(IQR 56.0 至 65.8)个月。无患者因松动或其他原因再次翻修。并发症包括 3 例(16.7%)早期脱位和 3 例(16.7%)延迟伤口愈合。术前平均 mHHS 和 UCLA 分别为 44.1±4.0(范围 35 至 50)和 2.6±0.7(范围 2 至 4),末次随访时分别为 73.7±4.2(范围 68 至 85)和 7.3±0.5(范围 7 至 8)。末次随访时 SF-36 评分平均明显高于术前,尤其是身体疼痛评分(P<0.05)。术前下肢长度差异(LLD)为 24.2±2.6(范围 20 至 32)mm,末次随访时为 5.8±1.8(范围 3 至 9)mm,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。然而,末次随访时两种方法在 mHHS、UCLA、SF-36、LLD 和髋关节 COR 方面无显著差异(P>0.05)。影像学评估显示所有随访髋关节均有植骨融合。
对于无骨盆连续性中断的 Paprosky III 型髋臼缺损,单独使用双 TM 杯或联合 IBG 进行缺损重建是一种实用且可靠的治疗选择。然而,高术后并发症发生率,尤其是脱位,仍然是一个挑战。