Fixation, Survival, and Dislocation of Jumbo Acetabular Components in Revision Hip Arthroplasty

Lachiewicz, Paul F.; Soileau, Elizabeth S.

doi:10.2106/jbjs.l.00758

Cited by 51 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Delp et al [2] showed that superolateral placement of the hip center (2 cm superior and 2 cm lateral) decreases the moment arms of the hip abductors by an average of 28%, thus reducing force-generating capacity. Lachiewicz and Soileau [9] reported a dislocation rate of 10% after jumbo cup revision THA, which was the most common complication observed in their series. Hip center elevation in jumbo cup revision THA, as we observed, may be one of several factors that contribute to soft tissue laxity and hip instability.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 88%

Do Jumbo Cups Cause Hip Center Elevation in Revision THA? A Radiographic Evaluation

Nwankwo

Ries

2014

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 88%

Do Jumbo Cups Cause Hip Center Elevation in Revision THA? A Radiographic Evaluation

Nwankwo

Ries

2014

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Gustke et al14) reported 196 hips had revisional arthroplasty with jumbo cup and mean followed for 10 years, the survival rate was 96%. The other study report the survival rate of jumbo cup is from 80% to 96%5789).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Using of jumbo cup with porous coated in revisional arthroplasty make greater host bone contract and peripheral rim fixation456). The survival rate of jumbo cup is relatively high from 80% to 96%5789). Some authors suggested that for better fixation of jumbo cup, peripheral rim fixation of acetabulum is essential10).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Study of Peripheral Rim Fixation Using Jumbo Cup in Revisional Hip Arthroplasty

Lim

et al. 2017

Hip & Pelvis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeIt is challenging procedure to revise acetabular component in acetabulum with severe bone defect or deformity. The jumbo cup is good option for revisional arthroplasty in large bone defect. The purpose of this study is to compare the prognosis of revisional total hip arthroplasty using jumbo cup with peripheral rim fixation and no rim fixation.Materials and MethodsWe included the patients who had performed acetabular revisional total hip arthroplasty from January 2002 to March 2015 in our institute. Total of 51 hips (51 patients) were included. The mean follow up period was 51 months (range, 12 to 154 months) and mean age was 60.7 years (range, 30 to 81 years). We divided into two groups (peripheral rim fixation group and no rim fixation group) by anteroposterior and lateral plain radiograph. We compared survival rate, hip center change and clinical outcomes between two groups.ResultsThere were 37 patients in peripheral rim fixation group and 14 patients in no rim fixation group. There was one patient who had aseptic loosening necessary to re-revision in rim fixation group and 3 patients in no rim fixation group. And one patient had superficial infection in rim fixation group and one patient had periprosthetic fracture in no rim fixation group. Survival rate was higher in the peripheral rim fixation group (97.3%) than no rim fixation group (78.6%, P=0.028)ConclusionBased on our findings, peripheral rim fixation might be recommended to improve short-term outcome after revision total hip arthroplasty using jumbo cup.

show abstract

“…Such cups have been reported to last as long as 15 years. 11,12 The use of jumbo cups and augments has replaced the use of bulk allografts at our institution.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do revision total hip augments provide appropriate modularity?

Teeter

Naudie

McCalden

et al. 2015

cjs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Porous metal acetabular augments have become widely used to fill bony defects in patients undergoing revision total hip arthroplasty. The objective of this study was to determine whether the currently offered size range of the augments is appropriate for surgical needs. Methods:We reviewed the cases of all patients at 1 centre with a porous revision shell, and when an augment was used we recorded the patient and implant characteristics. Results:We reviewed the cases of 281 patients, and augments were used in 24. Augment diameter was skewed toward the small end (p < 0.001), although thickness was not (p = 0.05); 21 of 24 augments were those with the smallest 3 diameters and thicknesses. Conclusion:Given the sizes used, the full range of inventory provided by the manufacturer may be unnecessary, as surgeons will likely attempt a larger shell before a larger augment.Contexte : Les implants de révision acétabulaire faits de métal poreux sont maintenant largement utilisés pour corriger les anomalies osseuses chez des patients qui doivent subir une révision de leur prothèse totale de la hanche. L'objectif de cette étude était de déterminer si la gamme actuelle des implants offerts répond aux besoins chirurgicaux.Méthodes : Nous avons passé en revue, dans un seul centre, tous les cas de révision effectuée au moyen d'un revêtement poreux. Lorsqu'un implant avait été utilisé, nous avons consigné les caractéristiques des patients et des implants. Résultats :Nous avons ainsi examiné 281 cas, dont 24 ont nécessité la pose d'un implant. Le diamètre de l'implant de révision était asymétrique vers l'extrémité fine (p < 0,001), mais non son épaisseur (p = 0,05); 21 implants sur 24 étaient des 3 diamètres et épaisseurs les plus petits. Conclusion :Compte tenu des tailles utilisées, la gamme complète offerte par le fabricant n'est peut-être pas nécessaire, puisque les chirurgiens tenteront selon toutes probabilités d'utiliser un revêtement plus volumineux avant d'utiliser un implant plus volumineux. R evision total hip arthroplasty is substantially more complex than primary arthroplasty, with bone defects surrounding the implant being a common occurrence. Traditionally, segmental bony defects have been filled with bone graft, either in combination with a jumbo cementless cup or, in the case of large defects, with a cage to bridge these defects. However, in the past decade porous metal acetabular augments have been developed as an alternative.1 These augments integrate (or unitize) with the acetabular component of the implant (the acetabular cup) and are screwed into the surrounding bone, filling the defect (Fig. 1). Although augments were initially marketed by a single implant manufacturer, multiple versions of these porous metal (tantalum or titanium alloys) augments are now available from other manufacturers. Midterm results suggest that the augments are effective for filling the bony defect and provide stable fixation. 2,3The augments, like the implants themselves, follow the principle of modularity, meaning they a...

show abstract

Fixation, Survival, and Dislocation of Jumbo Acetabular Components in Revision Hip Arthroplasty

Cited by 51 publications

References 21 publications

Do Jumbo Cups Cause Hip Center Elevation in Revision THA? A Radiographic Evaluation

Do Jumbo Cups Cause Hip Center Elevation in Revision THA? A Radiographic Evaluation

Comparative Study of Peripheral Rim Fixation Using Jumbo Cup in Revisional Hip Arthroplasty

Do revision total hip augments provide appropriate modularity?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About