Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Bone impaction grafting and anti-protrusio cages in high-grade acetabular defects: a 22-year single centre experience

  • Hip Arthroplasty
  • Published:
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Report clinical and radiological long-term follow-up (FU) outcome of bone impaction grafting (BIG) and anti-protrusio cage (APC) technique in hip revision surgery.

Materials and methods

We analysed data on complications, as well as the clinical and radiological outcome of patients treated using this technique at our institution. We evaluated the acetabular bone stock renovation, acetabular component stability and its radiological migration. The clinical parameters considered were the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS).

Results

Forty hips, with a mean 14.3-year FU, were included. This technique showed good clinical long-term results in an elderly and low-demanding population (mean age at surgery 71.4 ± 12.1 years). The radiological results were not as good as clinical results: 67.5% of cases had a radiographic evidence of resorption of less than 1/3 of the bone graft; 27.5% had a resorption ranging from 1/3 and ½ of the graft, and 5% had more than ½ of the graft. Paprosky type III B reported worse results in terms of graft resorption and a greater migration of the APC (p < 0.001). The survival rate was 95% and a 2.5% rate of septic failure was recorded.

Conclusion

Impaction grafting with femoral head and APC is an effective technique for treating high-grade acetabular defects. APC reconstructs the hip centre of rotation, avoiding loading forces on the underlying bone graft that can be correctly integrated. At long-term FU, satisfactory clinical results, not strictly correlated to radiological signs of integration, were observed; Paprosky type III B reported worse results in terms of graft resorption and a greater migration of the APC.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Beckmann NA, Weiss S, Klotz MCM, Gondan M, Jaeger S, Bitsch RG (2014) Loosening after acetabular revision: comparison of trabecular metal and reinforcement rings. A systematic review. J Arthroplasty 29:229–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bozic KJ, Kurtz SM, Lau E, Ong K, Vail TP, Berry DJ (2009) The epidemiology of revision total hip arthroplasty in the United States. J Bone Jt Surg Am 91(128):33

    Google Scholar 

  3. Long WJ, Nayyar S, Chen KK, Novikov D, Davidovitch RI, Vigdorchik M (2018) Early aseptic loosening of the Tritanium primary acetabular component with screw fixation. Arthroplasty Today 4:169–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E et al (2007) Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Jt Surg Am 89:780–785

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bordini B, Stea S, De Clerico M, Strazzari S, Sasdelli A, Toni A (2007) Factors affecting aseptic loosening of 4750 hip arthroplasties: multivariate survival analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 8:69. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-8-69

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Sukur E, Akman YE, Ozturkmen Y, Kucukdurmaz F (2016) Particle disease: a current review of the biological mechanism in periprosthetic osteolysis after hip arthroplasty. Open Orthop J 110:241–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Busanelli L, Castagnini F, Bordini B, Stea S, Calderoni PP, Toni A (2019) The biological acetabular reconstruction with bone allografts in hip revision arthroplasty. Musculoskelet Surg 103:173–179

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Paprosky WG, Perona PG, Lawrence JM (1994) Acetabular defect classification and surgical reconstruction in revision arthroplasty: a 6-year follow-up evaluation. J Arthroplasty 9(1):33–44

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Baauw M, Hooff ML, Spruit M (2016) Current construct options for revision of large acetabular defects. A systematic review. JBJS Rev 4(11):e2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Marx A, Beier A, Richter A, Lohmann CH, Halder AM (2016) Major acetabular defects treated with the Burch-Schneider antiprotrusion cage and impaction bone allograft in a large series: a 5- to 7- year follow-up study. Hip Int 26(6):585–590

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Pipino F, Cimmino M, Palermo A (2013) A modified lateral approach for neck-preserving arthroplasty: tips and tecnica notes. J Orthop Traumatol 14:137–142

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Gill TJ, Sledge JB, Muller ME (1998) The Burch-Schneider anti-protrusio cage in revision total hip arthroplasty: indications, principles and long term results. J Bone Jt Surg B 80(6):946–953

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Gross AE (1996) Revision arthroplasty of the acetabulum with restoration of bone stock. Clin Orthop Relat Res 324:108–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Nunn D, Freeman MA, Hill PF, Evans SJ (1989) The measurement of migration of the acetabular component of hip prostheses. J Bone Jt Surg Br 71(4):629–631. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.71B4.2768311

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Waddel BS, Gonzalzez Della Valle A (2017) Reconstruction of non-contained acetabular defects with impaction grafting, a reinforcement mesh and a cemented polyethylene acetabular component. Bone Jt J 99-B(1 Supple A):25–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Traina F, Giardina F, De Clerico M, Toni A (2005) Structural allograft and primary press-fit cup for severe acetabular deficiency. A minimum 6-year follow-up study. Int Orthop SICOT 29:135–139

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Burwell RG (1985) The function of bone marrow in the incorporation of a bone graft. Clin Orthop Relat Res 200:125–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Pierannunzii L, Zagra L (2017) Bone grafts, bone graft extenders, substitutes and enhancers for acetabular reconstruction in revision total hip arthroplasty. EFORT Open Rev 1:431–439

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Arts JJ, Verdonschot N, Buma P, Schreurs BW (2006) Larger bone graft size and washing of bone grafts prior to impaction enhances the initial stability of cemented cups: experiments using a synthetic acetabular model. Acta Orthop 77:227–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Van der Donk S, Buma P, Slooff TJ et al (2002) Incorporation of morselized bone grafts: a study of 24 acetabular biopsy specimens. Clin Orthop Relat Res 396:131–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Gerhardt DMJM, De Visser E, Hendrickx BW, Schreurs BW, Van Susante JLC (2018) Bone mineral density changes in the graft after acetabular impaction bone grafting in primary and revision hip surgery. A 2-year prospective follow-up. Acta Orthop 89(3):302–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hosny HAH, El-Bakoury A, Fekry H, Keenan J (2017) Mid-term results of graft augmentation prosthesis II cage and impacted allograft bone in revision hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 33:1487–1493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Garbuz D, Morsi E, Mohamed N, Gross AE (1996) Classification and reconstruction in revision acetabular arthroplasty with bone stock deficiency. Clin Orthop Relat Res 324:98–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Slooff TJ, Schimmel JW, Buma P (1993) Cemented fixation with bone grafts. Orthop Clin N Am 24:667–677

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Comba F, Buttaro M, Pusso R et al (2009) Acetabular revision surgery with impacted bone allografts and cemented cups in patients younger than 55 years. Int Orthop 33:611–616

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Formica M, Cavagnaro L, Basso M, Zanirato A, Palermo A, Felli L (2016) What is the fate of the neck after a collum femoris preserving prosthesis? A nineteen years single center experience. Int Orthop 41:1329–1335

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

None.

Funding

No funding was received for this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Genova, Clinica Ortopedica, IRCCS Policlinico San Martino, Largo Rosanna Benzi 10, 16132, Genoa, GE, Italy

    E. Quarto, A. Zanirato & M. Formica

  2. Genova, Ortopedia e Traumatologia d’Urgenza, IRCCS Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Italy

    F. Santolini

Authors
  1. E. Quarto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. Zanirato
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. F. Santolini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M. Formica
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to E. Quarto.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This is a retrospective analysis of a cohort of patients who underwent surgery at our institution; no ethical approval was necessary for this study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Quarto, E., Zanirato, A., Santolini, F. et al. Bone impaction grafting and anti-protrusio cages in high-grade acetabular defects: a 22-year single centre experience. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 142, 2083–2091 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-021-04081-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-021-04081-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation