Malahias Michael-Alexander, Sarantis Michail, Gkiatas Ioannis, Jang Seong J, Gu Alex, Thorey Fritz, Alexiades Michael M, Nikolaou Vasileios S
The Stavros Niarchos Foundation Complex Joint Reconstruction Center, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA.
4th Orthopaedic Department, Hospital KAT, Athens, Greece.
Hip Int. 2023 Jul;33(4):705-715. doi: 10.1177/11207000221099817. Epub 2022 Jun 5.
A number of papers have been published about the clinical performance of modern rough-blasted titanium Burch-Schneider antiprotrusio cages (BS-APCs) for the treatment of acetabular bone defects. However, no systematic review of the literature has been published to date.
The US National Library of Medicine (PubMed/MEDLINE), EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were queried for publications using keywords pertinent to Burch-Schneider antiprotrusio cage, revision THA, and clinical outcomes.
8 articles were found to be suitable for inclusion in the present study in which 374 cases (370 patients) had been treated with modern BS-APCs. Most acetabular bone defects were type 3 according to the Paprosky classification (type 2C: 18.1%, 3A: 51%, and 3B: 28.9%). The overall re-revision rate for the 374 acetabular reconstructions with modern BS-APCs was 11.5% (43 cases). The short-term survival rate of the modern BS-APC construct was 90.6% (339 out of 374 cases), while the mid-term survival rate was 85.6% (320 out of 374 cases), and the long-term survival rate 62% (54 out of 87 cases). The most common reasons for revision were aseptic loosening (5.6%), periprosthetic joint infection (3.8%), dislocation (2.7%), and acetabular periprosthetic fracture (1.9%).
There was moderate quality evidence to show that the use of modern rough blasted titanium BS-APCs in cases of acetabular bone loss has an unacceptably high failure rate (38%). Given that antiprotrusio cages do not provide any biological fixation, we would not recommend the routine use of modern BS-APCs in complex revision THA cases. By contrast, the satisfactory short- to mid-term outcome of modern BS-APCs in combination with their low cost compared to highly porous acetabular implants, make us feel that BS-APCs might still be used in selected elderly or low-demand patients without severe superomedial acetabular bone loss.
关于现代粗喷砂钛制Burch-Schneider抗前突髋臼杯(BS-APCs)治疗髋臼骨缺损的临床性能,已有多篇论文发表。然而,迄今为止尚未发表对相关文献的系统评价。
检索美国国立医学图书馆(PubMed/MEDLINE)、EMBASE和Cochrane系统评价数据库,使用与Burch-Schneider抗前突髋臼杯、翻修全髋关节置换术及临床结果相关的关键词进行文献检索。
发现8篇文章适合纳入本研究,其中374例(370例患者)接受了现代BS-APCs治疗。根据Paprosky分类,大多数髋臼骨缺损为3型(2C型:18.1%,3A型:51%,3B型:28.9%)。374例采用现代BS-APCs进行髋臼重建的总体再次翻修率为11.5%(43例)。现代BS-APC结构的短期生存率为90.6%(374例中的339例),中期生存率为85.6%(374例中的320例),长期生存率为62%(87例中的54例)。翻修的最常见原因是无菌性松动(5.6%)、假体周围关节感染(3.8%)、脱位(2.7%)和髋臼假体周围骨折(1.9%)。
有中等质量的证据表明,在髋臼骨丢失病例中使用现代粗喷砂钛制BS-APCs的失败率高得令人难以接受(38%)。鉴于抗前突髋臼杯不提供任何生物固定,我们不建议在复杂的翻修全髋关节置换术病例中常规使用现代BS-APCs。相比之下,现代BS-APCs令人满意的短期至中期结果,以及与高孔隙率髋臼植入物相比成本较低,使我们认为BS-APCs仍可用于选定的无严重髋臼上内侧骨丢失的老年或需求较低的患者。