Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Revisionsendoprothetik des Hüftgelenkes: Pfannenimplantate für die Revisionsendoprothetik

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:

We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

AE-Manual der Endoprothetik

Part of the book series: Springer Reference Medizin ((SRM))

  • 56 Accesses

Zusammenfassung

Aufgrund der geringeren Interdigitation des Zementes in die spongiöse Knochenstruktur bei der Pfannenrevision im Vergleich zur Primärimplantation sind die Standzeiten zementierter Pfannen bei Revisionsoperationen signifikant schlechter als die zementfreier Pfannensysteme. Zementfreie hemisphärische Pfannen haben bei Knochendefekten vom Typ Paprosky I und II gute, bei höhergradigen Defekten jedoch schlechte Ergebnisse mit hohen Migrations- und Lockerungsraten. Bei Defekten vom Typ II und teilweise IIIA können Abstützschalen verwendet werden, die allerdings bei größeren Defekten des hinteren Pfannenpfeilers schlechtere Standzeiten aufweisen. Bei Knochendefekten vom Typ Paprosky IIIA und IIIB kommen Individualimplantate oder modulare Pfannensysteme mit Augmenten zum Einsatz.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Literatur

  • Chen W-M, Engh A, Hopper RH, McAuley JP, Engh CA (2000) Acetabular revision with use of a bilobed component inserted without cement in patients who have acetabular bone-stock deficiency. J Bone Joint Surg 82-A:197–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christie MJ, Barrington SA, Brinson MF, Ruhling ME, DeBoer DK (2001) Bridging massive acetabular defects with the Triflange Cup. 2- to 9-year results. Clin Orthop Relat Res 393:216–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Civinini R, Capone A, Carulli C, Villano M, Gusso MI (2008) Acetabular revisions using a cementless oblong-cup: five to tne years results. Int Orthop 32:189–193

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • DeBoer DK, Christie MJ (1998) Reconstruction of the deficient acetabulum with a oblong prosthesis: three- to seven-year results. J Arthroplast 13:674–680

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Della Valle CJ, Berger RA, Rosenberg AG, Galante JO (2004) Cementless acetabular reconstruction in revision total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 420:96–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennis DA (2003) Management of massive acetabular defects in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 18:121–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elke R, Wagner A, Berli B, Morscher E (2001) Die Pfannenrevision. Klassifiaktionen und Behandlungsmöglichkeiten. Orthopäde 30:266–272

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Evola FR, Costarella L, Evola G, Barchitta M, Adodi A, Sessa G (2017) Acetabular revisions using porous tantalum components: a retrospective study with 5–10 years follow-up. World J Orthop 8:553–560

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Fink B, Grossmann A (2008) Technik der Implantation einer zementlosen Pressfit-Pfanne bei Pfannenrevisionen mit größeren Knochendefekten. Oper Orthop Traumatol 20:157–167

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Flecher X, Sporer S, Paprosky W (2008) Management of severe bone loss in acetabular revision using a trabecular metal shell. J Arthroplast 23:949–955

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frenzel S, Horas K, Rak D, Boelch SP, Rudert M, Holzapfel BM (2020) Acetabular revision with intramedullary and extramedullary iliac fixation for pelvic discontinuity. J Arthroplast 35(12):3679–85 e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2020.06.067

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia-Cibrolo E (1999) Porous-coated cementless acetabular cups in revision surgery: a 6- to 11-year follow-up study. J Arthroplasty 14(4):397–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0883-5403(99)90094-3. PMID: 10428219

  • Gerber PM, Manzoni I, Ochsner PE, Ilchmann T, Zwicky L, Clauss M (2017) Excellent long-term results of the Müller acetabular reinforcement ring in primary cup revision. A single-center study of 259 cases after a mean of 10 years’ follow-up. Acta Orthop 88:619–626

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goriainov V, King LJ, Oreffo ROC, Dunlop DG (2021) Custom 3D-printed triflange implants for treatment of severe acetabular defects, with and without pelvic discontinuity. Early results of our first 19 consecutive cases. JBJS Open Access 2021:e21.00057

    Google Scholar 

  • Götze C, Sippel C, Wendt G, Steinbeck J (2002) Grenzen der zementfreien Revisionsarthroplastik. Mittelfristige Resultate mit der längsovalen Revisionspfanne. Z Orthop 140:182–189

    Google Scholar 

  • Herrera A, Martínez CJ, Canales V (2006) Management of types III and IV acetabular deficiencies with longitudinal oblong revision cup. J Arthroplast 21:857–864

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kawalkar AC, Kalanie A, Neil MJ (2021) Excellent midterm results of triflange patient matched implants for extensive acetabular bone defect. Hip Pelvis 33:87–95

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Kosashvili Y, Backstein D, Safir O, Lakstein D, Gross AE (2009) Acetabular revision using an anti-protrusion (ilio-ischial) cage and trabecular metal acetabular component for severe acetabular bone loss associated with pelvic discontinuity. J Bone Joint Surg Br 91-B:870–876

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lakstein D, Backstein D, Safir O, Kosashvilli Y, Gross AE (2009) Trabecular Metal cups for acetabular defects with 50 % or less host bone contact. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467:2318–2324

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Leopold SS, Rosenberg AG, Bhatt RD, Sheinkop MB, Quigley LR, Galante JO (1999) Cementless acetabular revision. Clin Orthop Relat Res 369:179–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lie SA, Havelin LI, Furnes ON, Engesaeter LB, Vollset SE (2004) Failure rates for 4762 revision total hip arthroplasties in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. J Bone Joint Surg Br 86(4):504–509

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mancino F, Cacciola G, Di Matteo V, De Marco D, Greenberg A, Perisano C, Malahias MA, Sculco PK, Maccauro G, De Martino I (2020) Reconstruction options and outcomes for acetabular bone loss in revision hip arthroplasty. Orthop Rev 12:8655

    Google Scholar 

  • Maruyama M, Wakabayashi S, Ota H, Tensho K (2017) Reconstruction of the shallow acetabulum with a combination of autologous bulk and impaction bone grafting fixed by cement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 475:387–395

    Google Scholar 

  • Migaud H, Commen H, Girard J, Huten D, Putman S (2019) Acetabular reconstruction using porous metallic material in complex revision total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review. Orthop Trauma Surg Res 105:S53–S61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mirza AH, Sadiq S (2021) A review and description of acetabular impaction bone grafting: updating the traditional technique. Hip Pelvis 33:173–180

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Paprosky W, Sporer S, O’Rourke MR (2006) The treatment of pelvic discontinuity with acetabular cages. Clin Orthop Relat Res 453:183–187

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Paprosky WG, Perona PG, Lawrence JM (1994) Acetabular defect classification and surgical reconstruction in revision arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 9:33–44

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pereira GCT, Kubiak EN, Levine B, Chen FS, Di Cesare PE (2007) Cavitary acetabular defects treated with morselized cancellous bone graft and cementless cups. Int Orthop 31:445–450

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Perka C et al (2012) Revisionsendoprothetik. In: Claes L, Kirschner P, Perka C, Rudert M (Hrsg) AE-Manual der Endoprothetik. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14646-6_14

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Regis D, Sandri A, Bonetti I (2014) Acetabular reconstruction with the Burch-Schneider Antiprotrusio Cage and bulk allografts: minimum 10-year follow-up results. Biomed Res Int 2014:194076. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/194076. Epub 2014 May 21

  • Rudert M, Holzapfel BM, Kratzer F, Gradinger R (2010) [Standardized reconstruction of acetabular bone defects using the cranial socket system]. Oper Orthop Traumatol 22(3):241–255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00064-010-9003-z

  • Shen X, Tian H, Li Y, Zuo J, Gao Z, Xiao J (2022) Acetabular revision arthroplasty based on 3-cimensional reconstruction technology using jumbo cups. Front Bioeng Biotechnol 10:799443

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Silverton CD, Rosenberg AG, Sheinkop MB, Kull LR, Galante JO (1996) Revision of the acetabular component without cement after total hip arthroplasty. A follow-up note regarding results at seven to eleven years. J Bone Joint Surg Am 78(9):1366–1370. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-199609000-00011. PMID: 8816652

  • Taylor ED, Browne JA (2012) Reconstruction options for acetabular revision. World J Orthop 3:95–100

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Templeton JE, Callaghan JJ, Goetz DD, Sullivan PM, Johnston RC (2001) Revision of a cemented acetabular component to a cementless acetabular component. A ten to fourteen-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 83(11):1706–1711. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200111000-00014. PMID: 11701795

  • Unger AS, Lewis RJ, Gruen T (2005) Evaluation of a porous tantalum uncemented acetabular cup in revision total hip arthroplasty: clinical and radiological results of 60 hips. J Arthroplast 20:1002–1009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verspeek J, Nijenhuis TA, Kuijpers MFL, Rijnen WHC, Schreurs BW (2021) What are the long-term results of cemented revision THA with use of both acetabular and femoral impaction bone grafting in patients younger than 55 years? Clin Orthop Relat Res 479:84–91

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Weeden SH, Schmidt RH (2007) The use of tantalum porous metal implants for Paprosky 3A and 3B Defects. J Arthroplast 22:151–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whaley AL, Berry DJ, Harmsen WS (2001) Extra-large uncemented hemispherical acetabular components for revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg 83:1352–1357

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Klinik für Endoprothetik, Wechselendoprothetik und Rheumaorthopädie, Orthopädische Klinik Markgröningen, Markgröningen, Deutschland

    Bernd Fink

  2. Klinik für Orthopädie & Unfallchirurgie, Helios-Klinikum Emil von Behring, Berlin, Deutschland

    Ufuk Sentürk

  3. Orthopädische Klinik, König-Ludwig-Haus, Würzburg, Deutschland

    Maximilian Rudert

Authors
  1. Bernd Fink
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ufuk Sentürk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Maximilian Rudert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bernd Fink .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. CMSC, Campus Mitte, Charite Berlin, Berlin, Berlin, Deutschland

    Carsten Perka

  2. Orthopädische Klinik Braunschweig, Herzog-Elisabeth-Hospital, Braunschweig, Niedersachsen, Deutschland

    Karl-Dieter Heller

Section Editor information

  1. Herzogin Elisabeth Hospital, Orthopädische Klinik Braunschweig, Braunschweig, Deutschland

    Karl-Dieter Heller

  2. Institut für Biomechanik, TUHH Technische Universität Hamburg, Hamburg, Deutschland

    M. Michael Morlock

  3. Centrum für Muskuloskeletale Chirurgie, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Deutschland

    Carsten Perka

  4. Orthopädische Klinik, König-Ludwig-Haus, Würzburg, Deutschland

    Maximilian Rudert

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 Springer-Verlag GmbH Deutschland, ein Teil von Springer Nature

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Fink, B., Sentürk, U., Rudert, M. (2023). Revisionsendoprothetik des Hüftgelenkes: Pfannenimplantate für die Revisionsendoprothetik. In: Perka, C., Heller, KD. (eds) AE-Manual der Endoprothetik. Springer Reference Medizin. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-55485-2_105-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-55485-2_105-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-55485-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-55485-2

  • eBook Packages: Springer Referenz Medizin

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation