When a constrained liner is used in a non-cemented cup it is advisable to add screw fixation to the cup even if the cup has an excellent press-fit because there is more pull-out pressure on the liner with a constrained cup. It also is necessary for the cup to be in the correct anteversion/inclination. It is not advisable to use a constrained liner to “make up” for poor cup position. The patient can still dislocate and then that will require an open reduction. Our most common use with constrained sockets is to
In primary total hip replacements there are numerous options available for providing hip stability in difficult situations (i.e. Down's syndrome, Parkinson's disease). We have considered constrained liners in some of these cases. However, in the revision situation in general and in revision for recurrent dislocation situation specifically it is important to have all options available including tripolar constrained liners in order to optimise the potential for hip stability as well as function of the arthroplasty. Even with the newer options available dislocation rates of higher than 10–15% have been reported following revision surgery at institutions where high volumes of revision surgery are performed. Because of the deficient abductors, other soft tissue laxity and the requirement for large diameter cups revision cases will always have more potential for dislocation. In these situations in the lower demand patient, constraint has provided excellent success in terms of preventing dislocation and maintaining implant construct fixation to bone at intermediate- term follow-up. Hence in these situations tripolar constrained liners remains the option we utilise. We are also confident in using this device in cases with instability or laxity where there is a secure well- positioned acetabular shell. We cement a dual mobility constrained liner in these situations using the technique described below. Present indication for tripolar constrained liners: low demand patient, large outer diameter cups, instability with well-fixed shells that are adequately positioned, abductor muscle deficiency or soft tissue laxity, multiple operations for instability. Technique of
In the revision situation in general and for recurrent dislocation specifically, it is important to have all options available including tripolar constrained liners in order to optimise the potential for hip stability as well as function. Even with the newer options available, dislocation rates of higher than 5% have been reported in the first two years following revision surgery at institutions where high volumes of revision surgery are performed (Wera et al). Because of the deficient abductors, other soft tissue laxity and the requirement for large diameter cups, revision cases will always have more potential for dislocation. In these situations, in the lower demand patient, tripolar constrained liners provided excellent success in terms of preventing dislocation and maintaining implant construct fixation to bone at intermediate term follow-up. Hence in these situations, tripolar with constraint remains the option we utilise in many cases. We are also confident in using this device in cases with instability or laxity where there is a secure well positioned acetabular shell. We cement a tripolar constrained liner in these situations using the technique described below. Present indication for tripolar constrained liners: low demand patient, abductor muscle deficiency or soft tissue laxity, large outer diameter cups, multiple operations for instability, instability with well-fixed shells that are adequately positioned. Technique of
In primary total hip replacements there are numerous options available for providing hip stability in difficult situations (i.e. Down's syndrome, Parkinson's disease). However, in the revision situation in general and in revision for recurrent dislocation specifically, it is important to have all options available including dual mobility constrained liners in order to optimise the potential for hip stability as well as function of the arthroplasty. Even with the newer options, available dislocation rates of higher than 5% have been reported in the first two years following revision surgery at institutions where high volumes of revision surgery are performed. Because of the deficient abductors, other soft tissue laxity and the requirement for large diameter cups, revision cases will always have more potential for dislocation. In these situations in the lower demand patient and where, a complex acetabular reconstruction that requires time for ingrowth before optimal implant bone stability to occur isn't present, dual mobility with constraint has provided excellent success in terms of preventing dislocation and maintaining implant construct fixation to bone at intermediate term follow-up. Hence in these situations dual mobility with constraint remains the option we utilise. We are also confident in using this device in cases with instability or laxity where there is a secure well-positioned acetabular shell. We cement a dual mobility constrained liner in these situations using the technique described below. Present indication for dual mobility constrained liners: low demand patient, large outer diameter cups, instability with well-fixed shells that are adequately positioned, abductor muscle deficiency or soft tissue laxity, multiple operations for instability. Technique of
In primary total hip replacements there are numerous options available for providing hip stability in difficult situations i.e. Down's syndrome, Parkinson's disease. However, in the revision situation, in general, and in revision for recurrent dislocation situations specifically, it is important to have all options available including dual mobility constrained liners in order to optimise the potential for hip stability as well as function of the arthroplasty. Even with the newer options available dislocation rates of higher than 5% have been reported in the first two years following revision surgery at institutions where high volumes of revision surgery are performed [Della Valle, Sporer, Paprosky unpublished data]. Because of the deficient abductors, other soft tissue laxity and the requirement for large diameter cups, revision cases will always have more potential for dislocation. In these situations in the lower demand patient and where, a complex acetabular reconstruction that requires time for ingrowth before optimal implant bone stability to occur isn't present, dual mobility with constraint has provided excellent success in terms of preventing dislocation and maintaining implant construct fixation to bone at intermediate term follow-up. Hence in these situations dual mobility with constraint remains the option we utilise. We are also confident in using this device in cases with instability or laxity where there is a secure well-positioned acetabular shell. We cement a dual mobility constrained liner in these situations using the technique described below. Present indication for dual mobility constrained liners: low demand patient, abductor muscle deficiency or soft tissue laxity, large outer diameter cups, multiple operations for instability, and instability with well-fixed shells that are adequately positioned. Technique of
Revision total hip replacements are likely to have higher complication rates than primary procedures due to the poor quality of the original bone. This may be constrained to achieve adequate fixation strength to prevent future “aseptic loosening” [1]. A thin, slightly flexible, acetabular component with a three dimensional, titanium foam in-growth surface has been developed to compensate for inferior bone quality and decreased contact area between the host bone and implant by better distributing loads across the remaining acetabulum in a revision situation. This is assumed to result in more uniform bone apposition to the implant by minimizing stress concentrations at the implant/bone contact points that may be associated with a thicker, stiffer acetabular component, resulting in improved implant performance.[2] To assemble the liner to the shell, the use of PMMA bone cement is recommended at the interface between the polyethylene insert and the acetabular shell as a locking mechanism configuration may not be ideal due to the flexibility in the shell [3]. The purpose of this study was to quantify the mechanical integrity of a thin acetabular shell with a
Introduction. This study was performed to evaluate the minimum 5-year clinical and radiological results of
The number of joint revision surgeries is rising, and the complexity of the cases is increasing. In 58% of the revision cases, the acetabular component has to be revised. For these indications, literature decision schemes [Paprosky 2005] point at custom pre-shaped implants. Any standard device would prove either unfeasible during surgery or inadequate in the short term. Studies show that custom-made triflanged implants can be a durable solution with good clinical results. However, the number of cases reported is few confirming that the device is not in widespread use. Case Report. A patient, female 50 yrs old, diagnosed having a pseudotumor after Resurfacing Arthroplasty for osteo-arthritis of the left hip joint. The revision also failed after 1 y and she developed a pelvic discontinuity. X-ray and Ct scans were taken and sent to a specialized implant manufacturer [Mobelife, Leuven, Belgium]. The novel process of patient-specific implant design comprises three highly automated steps. In the first step, advanced 3D image processing presented the bony structures and implant components. Analysis showed that anterior column was missing, while the posterior column was degraded and fractured. The acetabular defect was diagnosed being Paprosky 3B. The former acetabular component migrated in posterolateral direction resulting in luxation of the joint. The reconstruction proposal showed the missing bone stock and anatomical joint location. In the second step, a triflanged custom acetabular metal backing implant was proposed. The bone defect (35ml) is filled with a patient-specific porous structure which is rigidly connected to a solid patient-specific plate. The proposed implant shape is determined taking into account surgical window and surrounding soft tissues. Cup orientation is anatomically analyzed for inclination and anteversion. A
The interest in osteolysis has waned largely due to the impact of crosslinked polyethylene and the “rarity” of this phenomenon. However, the basic process still remains: particles, motion observed with unstable implants and host specific factors all play a role in bone loss around implants. There are 2 predominant patterns of lysis: Linear versus Expansile. Linear Lysis: is focal bone loss at the interface as seen in the bone cement interface in when using acrylic or at the implant-host interface with porous ingrowth/ongrowth implants. Expansile Lysis: is observed in less contained regions such as the retro- and supra-acetabular regions around the socket. These lesions can also be quite extensive yet may be subtle in appearance. Imaging is essential in identifying the extent and magnitude of osteolysis. Available modalities include plain radiographs although they can be of limited value in that even with oblique views, they often underestimate the degree of bone loss. CT scans are useful but can be limited by artifact. Several centers have explored the role of MRI in assessing lysis. It can be useful for bone loss and provides excellent assessment for soft tissue: abductors, neurovascular structures. Metal artifact reduction sequencing is required to maximise information obtainable. Management of osteolysis: Identification and monitoring periprosthetic osteolysis is a crucial element of patient care. Progressive bone loss leading to loss of fixation and the potential risk for periprosthetic fracture is a real possibility and early recognition and intervention is a priority. The basic Guiding Principles of management are centered around several key elements including the source of osteolysis and degree, the fixation of implant, the location of lysis, the track record of implant system, the presence of patient symptoms (if any), and finally the patient age, activity level, and general health. Specifics of treatment of osteolysis around the acetabulum: With cemented sockets, lysis is typically seen late and frequently at the bone-cement interface. It is often associated with a loose implant and the prime indication for surgery may be pain. Treatment involves implant removal and revision with an uncemented cup and bone grafting or augmentation as needed. With uncemented sockets in the setting of osteolysis, there are several factors to consider. These have been stratified by Rubash, Maloney, and Paprosky. The treatment of these sockets has been summarised as follows: for Type I and Type II with limited lysis, lesional treatment such as debridement and bone grafting with head and polyethylene exchange has been suggested. WATCH for impingement!!!! Graft defects via trap-doors can be performed but make the door big enough to graft. Small doors and grafting through screw holes is at best marginal. In instances of compromised locking mechanisms, consider
Wear and osteolysis are the major problems limiting the longevity of total hip arthroplasty. There is general agreement that if left untreated osteolysis will eventually lead to loosening of the acetabular component. In many cases polyethylene liner exchange may be preferable to revision of a well-fixed acetabular component. If there is osteolysis present the question is when should the polyethylene liner exchange be performed? The answer to that question has not been definitively defined at the present time. There are few studies available that evaluate the timing of surgical intervention when acetabular osteolysis is present. Indications for surgical intervention include prevention of complete wear of the head through the polyethylene liner (liner thickness < 1.5 mm) and when the osteolysis involves 50% or more of the shell circumference on AP or lateral x-rays. Of course persistent pain with wear or osteolysis is another indication for surgery. Contraindications to cup retention and liner exchange include: 1) Malpositioned component; 2) Non-modular component; 3) Unable to obtain hip stability; 4) Thin polyethylene liner (relative); 5) Severe damage to acetabular shell; and 6) Poor track record of the acetabular component. If one decides to retain the component the following steps are generally involved in operative management. Remove the liner and assess component stability. Assess the locking mechanism for the polyethylene. If the locking mechanism is not intact one can consider
Periacetabular osteolysis is seen in response to particles (polyethylene, ceramic, metal or cement), at times in the presence of an unstable implant, and perhaps made worse by the unique host response to the particle burden. The impact of wear modes: due to either the primary bearing surface (MOP, MOM, COC) or unintended surfaces as seen in impingement, as well as the quality of the bearing counterface all influence the extent of the osteolytic response. The final common pathway appears to be via macrophage stimulation, an upregulation of cytokines leading to a resorption of bone. The patterns of lysis range from linear resorption at the implant interface to more expansile patterns which can be more dramatic in size and may place the implant at jeopardy for loosening. Assessment of implant fixation as well as extent of the lytic process employs the use of plain radiographs (including oblique views), computerised tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. The utility of MRI for the quantification of bone loss as well as the newer phenomena of associated soft tissue lesions (pseudotumors, adverse tissue reactions) has turned out to be a valuable tool in helping determine timing and need for revision. The basic principles in determining need for revision surgery revolve around: degree of lysis, integrity of the soft tissues, fixation of the implant, track record of the implant, as well as patient factors including symptoms, age and activity. In cemented sockets, progressive bone loss, pain with or without overt loosening is indication for revision which is generally accomplished using an uncemented hemispherical acetabular component with bone graft and screw augmentation. In the uncemented socket, the decision to revise is based upon a) implant stability, 2) the integrity of the locking mechanism, 3) degree of bone loss. With stable implants, polyethylene exchange and “lesional” treatment is appropriate. Well fixed implants with extensive lysis can be successfully managed with liner exchange and bone grafting as necessary. If the liner locking mechanism is compromised,
Reoperation on the acetabular side of the total hip arthroplasty construct because of acetabular liner wear with or without extensive osteolysis is the most common reoperation performed in revision hip surgery today. The options of revision of the component or component retention, liner exchange (cemented or direct reinsertion) and bone grafting represent a classic surgeon dilemma of choices and compromises. CT scanning is helpful in determining the size and location of osteolytic lesions. My preference is to retain the existing shell when possible especially when there are large osteolytic lesions but where structural support is maintained. The advantages of complete revision are easy access to lytic lesions, ability to change component position and the ability to use contemporary designs with optimal bearing surfaces (for wear and dislocation prevention). The disadvantage is bone disruption including pelvic discontinuity with component removal (less so with Explant Systems) and difficult reconstructions due to excessive bone loss from the osteolytic defects (sometimes requiring cup cages). The advantage of component retention is that structural integrity of the pelvis is maintained and in general, a higher quality polyethylene is utilised. For large lesions I use windows to debride and bone graft the lesions. If the locking mechanism is inadequate,
In the revision situation, there are times where larger heads are just not enough to obtain and maintain stability. The two most relevant times that this is the case is in patients with very lax tissues, or in patients with insufficient or absent soft tissues, especially abductor mechanisms. In addition, in cases where a revision is being performed for dislocation and components looked well-positioned, constrained liners have been extremely beneficial in our hands. Constrained acetabular liners have been available for close to two decades. Two basic types of liners are available. The type first developed by Joint Medical Products was the SROM constrained liner which captured the femoral head with a locking ring in the polyethylene. These liners may have better results with larger head sizes because the hip can be taken through a larger range of motion (with larger head sizes) before the locking ring is stressed. The second type of constraining liner was developed by Osteonics (Stryker). It consisted of a tripolar replacement which is constrained by a locking ring in the outer polyethylene of the device. Indications for constrained liners include patients undergoing primary arthroplasty who are low demand and have dementia or hip muscle weakness or spasticity. Indications for constrained liners in the revision situation include cases with previously failed operations for instability, elderly low demand patients with instability, cases with poor or absent hip musculature, and cases with well positioned acetabular and femoral components and with hip instability. In this last scenario we
