Pelvic Discontinuity Treated With Custom Triflange Component: A Reliable Option

Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 200 1st Street SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research (Impact Factor: 2.77). 02/2012; 470(2):428-34. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-011-2126-1
Source: PubMed


Pelvic discontinuity is an increasingly common complication of THA. Treatments of this complex situation are varied, including cup-cage constructs, acetabular allografts with plating, pelvic distraction technique, and custom triflange acetabular components. It is unclear whether any of these offer substantial advantages.
We therefore determined (1) revision and overall survival rates, (2) discontinuity healing rate, and (3) Harris hip score (HHS) after treatment of pelvic discontinuity with a custom triflange acetabular component and (4) the cost of this reconstructive operation compared to other constructs.
We retrospectively reviewed 57 patients with pelvic discontinuity treated with revision THA using a custom triflange acetabular component. We reviewed operative reports, radiographs, and clinical data for clinical and radiographic results. We also performed a cost comparison with utilization of other techniques. Minimum followup was 24 months (average, 65 months; range, 24-215 months).
Fifty-six of 57 (98%) were free of revision for aseptic loosening at latest followup. Fifty-four (95%) were free of revision of the triflange component for any reason. Thirty-seven (65%) were free of revision for any reason. Twenty-eight (49%) were free of revision for any reason and free of any component migration and had a healed discontinuity. Forty-six (81%) had a stable triflange component with a healed pelvic discontinuity. Average HHS was 74.8. The costs of the custom triflange implants and a Trabecular Metal cup-cage construct were equivalent: $12,500 and $11,250, respectively.
In this group of patients with osteolytic pelvic discontinuity, triflange implants provided predictable mid-term fixation at a cost equivalent to other treatment methods.
Level IV, therapeutic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Download full-text


Available from: Michael J Taunton,
  • Source
    • "Another advantage of preoperative CT-scans is the possibility to generate 3-dimensional models so that a better understanding of the acetabular anatomy is possible. With this information, the need for custom made implants or cages can also be performed [12]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Acetabular defects, particularly as a result of protrusion of acetabular components into the hemipelvis, may cause serious complications during revision procedures as a result of iatrogenic injury to surrounding anatomical structures. In these challenging cases, we advocate the utilisation of preoperative three dimensional imaging. MRI and CT- imaging offer superior understanding of the three-dimensional quality of bony defects and the relationship of implants to important anatomical structures. Appropriate preoperative planning may also prevent major complications during the removal of the pre-existing hardware, prior to re-implantation of implants. Potential complications include injury of nerves, blood vessels and other intrapelvic structures. In our case, a major bony defect of the acetabulum was a result of the protrusion of an implanted reinforcement ring. A preoperative, contrast-enhanced CT scan showed that the urethra was in close proximity to the hook of the reinforcement ring. The preoperative imaging aided in identifying and understanding the potential complications that could occur intraoperatively. Additionally, it delineated the intact anatomic structures prior to surgery, which could have medico-legal implications. The importance of preoperative imaging and the existing literature is discussed within this case description.
    The Open Orthopaedics Journal 05/2012; 6:215-9. DOI:10.2174/1874325001206010215
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Custom triflange implants are used today along with standard antiprotrusio cages and modular revision systems for difficult revision cases with important acetabular defects (Paprosky II C or III). This paper presents a new personalised acetabular cage in regards to the design procedure and realisation applied on a specific patient case. The cage proposed is similar in construction to a Burch Schneider cage and tries to combine the advantages of custom design with the versatility and cost efficiency of the antiprotrusio cages. The design procedure is presented starting from patient information acquisition and model build up, continuing with the necessary design parameters and design features for the cage and drill guide and ending with an experimental realisation of the cage and guide trough 3D rapid prototyping.
    E-Health and Bioengineering Conference (EHB), 2013; 01/2013
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The treatment of extensive acetabular bone loss and pelvic discontinuity in revision total hip arthroplasty remains challenging. We report our preliminary experience with the modified custom-made triflanged acetabular reconstruction ring (MCTARR) in the management of such situations. The MCTARR is a custom-made metal reinforcement ring with a trabecular surface to encourage bone ingrowth and a bulky trabecular metal augmentation to fill the acetabular defects, designed to achieve initial and long-term stability. A custom-made drilling jig is used to achieve optimal screw positioning. The clinical and radiological short-term follow-up (10-58 months) of our first six cases treated with this new technique show acceptable to good results. None of the reconstructions failed or had to be revised. Clinical results were satisfactory. Radiographs showed good screw positioning. The custom-made acetabular drilling jig and the reconstruction of the acetabulum with a titanium porous structure are of added value in the treatment of severe acetabular bone loss and pelvic discontinuity with custom-made triflanged components.
    Acta orthopaedica Belgica 02/2013; 79(1):71-5. · 0.65 Impact Factor
Show more