Outcome of repeated multi-stage arthroplasty with custom-made acetabular implants in patients with severe acetabular bone loss: a case series. (September 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Fröschen, Frank S; Randau, Thomas M; Hischebeth, Gunnar T R; Gravius, Nadine; Wirtz, Dieter C; Gravius, Sascha; Walter, Sebastian G
• Other Names: Kendoff Daniel guest-editor.; Sandiford N Amir guest-editor.
• Is Part Of: Hip international. Volume 30(2020)Supplement 1
• Page Start: 64
• Page End: 71
• Publication Date: 2020-09
• Subjects: Acetabular bone loss -- aseptic loosening -- custom-made acetabular component -- pelvic discontinuity -- periprosthetic joint infection -- revision total hip arthroplasty -- risk factor -- treatment failure; Hip joint -- Pathophysiology -- Periodicals; Hip joint -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Hip joint -- Surgery -- Periodicals; 617.581005
• DOI: 10.1177/1120700020928247
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1120-7000

Abstract

Background: Failed reconstruction in cases of severe acetabular bone loss, with or without pelvic discontinuity, in revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) remains a great challenge in orthopaedic surgery. The aim of this study was to describe the outcome of a "second" rTHA with "custom-made acetabular components (CMACs)" after a previously failed reconstruction with CMACs. Methods: 4 patients with severe acetabular bone loss (Paprosky Type IIIB), who required a second rTHA after a previously failed reconstruction with CMAC, due to prosthetic joint infection (PJI), were included in our retrospective study. All prostheses had been constructed on the basis of thin-layer computed-tomography scans of the pelvis. The second rTHA was considered unsuccessful in the event of PJI or aseptic loosening (AL) with need for renewed CMAC explantation. Results: The treatment success rate after second rTHA with a CMAC was 50% (2 of 4). In the successful cases, the visual analogue scale (VAS) score and Harris Hip Score (HHS) after the second rTHA (VAS range 2–4; HHS range 45–58 points) did not differ from those after the first rTHA, before onset of symptoms (VAS: range 2–4; HHS: range 47–55 points). In the failed cases, the second CMACs needed to be explanted due to PJI, with renewed detection of previous pathogens. Patients with treatment failure of the second CMAC had required a higher number of revision surgeries after explantation of the first CMAC than patients with a successful outcome. Conclusions: In patients with severe acetabular bone loss and previously failed rTHA with CMACs, repeat rTHA with a CMAC may be a solid treatment option for patients with an "uncomplicated" multi-stage procedure, i.e., without persisting infection after explantation of the original CMAC. While the outcome in terms of clinical function does not appear negatively affected by such a "second attempt, " the complication rate and risk of reinfection, nonetheless, is high.