Osteolysis in the well-fixed socket: Cup retention or revision?

The Bone & Joint Journal (Impact Factor: 3.31). 11/2012; 94-B(11_Supple_A):65-69. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.94B11.30616


Osteolysis remains a common reason for revision after total hip arthroplasty (THA). For osteolysis associated with loose cups, revision is indicated. For osteolysis around a well-fixed cup, the decision is more controversial. The data available data support retention of the cupwith lesional treatment, working through screw holes and access channels for debridement and grafting. The choice of graft material to fill defects, if any, remains controversial. Several studies demonstrate good survivorship with cup retention strategies. Complete revision allows more complete debridement of the lesion and better graft fill, and allows implantation of a modern cup, typically with a full line of liners and bearing surfaces available. Additionally, revision allows fine tuning of the orientation of the cup, which may be advantageous for optimising hip stability. The author prefers to retain a well-fixed cup if it meets the following criteria: it is well-fixed to intra-operative testing, it is well-positioned, it is of sufficient size to allow insertion of a new liner with a reasonable head size, new liners are available, and the hip is stable to intra-operative trialing after liner insertion.

0 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We previously reported wear data at a minimum of two years following thirty-four total hip replacements with a Marathon cross-linked polyethylene liner and twenty-four replacements with a conventional (gamma-sterilized-in-air) Enduron polyethylene liner. In this current study, with sequential five-year radiographs, wear rates were determined with use of linear regression analysis. The Marathon polyethylene had average wear rates of 15.4 mm(3)/yr and 8.0 mm(3)/million cycles. The Enduron polyethylene had average wear rates of 55.5 mm(3)/yr and 29.9 mm(3)/million cycles. The adjusted volumetric wear rate of the Marathon polyethylene was 73% lower than that of the Enduron polyethylene (p = 0.001). Osteolysis developed in eight of the twenty-four hips with an Enduron liner but was not apparent in any hip with a Marathon liner.
    The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 08/2008; 90(7):1487-91. DOI:10.2106/JBJS.F.00991 · 5.28 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study assessed the early morbidity associated with modular component exchange surgery for the treatment of accelerated polyethylene wear and osteolysis in 55 patients. Review of the surgical records revealed no significant intraoperative complications, little intraoperative blood loss (mean 333 mL), no allogenic blood transfusions, and no recorded postoperative deep vein thromboses. Eighteen percent of patients, however, experienced postoperative dislocation. Five patients dislocated multiple times, 3 of which required rerevision surgery. Two patients required rerevision for femoral implant fractures related to osteolysis and 1 additional patient required rerevision due to catastrophic failure of the acetabular component 5 years postoperatively. With an average follow-up of 30 months, 6 of the 55 patients treated with modular exchange required rerevision. The results of this study suggest that instability is the most prevalent early complication associated with modular component exchange. As such, we believe that more stable constructs should be emphasized, possibly at the expense of polyethylene thickness.
    The Journal of Arthroplasty 11/2004; 19(7 Suppl 2):61-6. DOI:10.1016/j.arth.2004.06.014 · 2.67 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We analysed the results of different strategies in the revision of primary uncemented acetabular components reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. The aim was to compare the risk of further acetabular revision after isolated liner exchange and complete component revision. The results of exchanging well-fixed components were also compared with those of exchanging loose acetabular components. The period studied was between September 1987 and April 2005. The following groups were compared: group 1, exchange of liner only in 318 hips; group 2, exchange of well-fixed components in 398; and group 3, exchange of loose components in 933. We found that the risk of a further cup revision was lower after revision of well-fixed components (relative risk from a Cox model (RR) = 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.37% to 0.87%) and loose components (RR = 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.39% to 0.80%), compared with exchange of the liner in isolation. The most frequent reason for a further acetabular revision was dislocation, accounting for 61 (28%) of the re-revisions. Other reasons for further revision included pain in 27 (12%), loosening in 24 (11%) and infection in 20 (9%). Re-revisions because of pain were less frequent when complete component (fixed or loose) revision was undertaken compared with isolated exchange of the liner (RR = 0.20 (95% confidence interval 0.06% to 0.65%) and RR = 0.10 (95% confidence interval 0.03% to 0.30%), respectively). The risk of further acetabular revision for infection, however, did not differ between the groups. In this study, exchange of the liner only had a higher risk of further cup revision than revision of the complete acetabular component. Our results suggest that the threshold for revising well-fixed components in the case of liner wear and osteolysis should be lowered.
    The Bone & Joint Journal 06/2007; 89(5):591-4. DOI:10.1302/0301-620X.89B5.18623 · 3.31 Impact Factor