Cargando…

Biphasic bone graft substitute in revision total hip arthroplasty with significant acetabular bone defects: a retrospective analysis

AIMS: Large acetabular bone defects encountered in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) are challenging to restore. Metal constructs for structural support are combined with bone graft materials for restoration. Autograft is restricted due to limited volume, and allogenic grafts have downsides incl...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: McPherson, Edward J., Stavrakis, Alexandra I., Chowdhry, Madhav, Curtin, Nora L., Dipane, Matthew V., Crawford, Brooke M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery 2022
Materias:
Hip
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9783269/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36545948
http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/2633-1462.312.BJO-2022-0094.R1
Descripción
Sumario:AIMS: Large acetabular bone defects encountered in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) are challenging to restore. Metal constructs for structural support are combined with bone graft materials for restoration. Autograft is restricted due to limited volume, and allogenic grafts have downsides including cost, availability, and operative processing. Bone graft substitutes (BGS) are an attractive alternative if they can demonstrate positive remodelling. One potential product is a biphasic injectable mixture (Cerament) that combines a fast-resorbing material (calcium sulphate) with the highly osteoconductive material hydroxyapatite. This study reviews the application of this biomaterial in large acetabular defects. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review at a single institution of patients undergoing revision THA by a single surgeon. We identified 49 consecutive patients with large acetabular defects where the biphasic BGS was applied, with no other products added to the BGS. After placement of metallic acetabular implants, the BGS was injected into the remaining bone defects surrounding the new implants. Patients were followed and monitored for functional outcome scores, implant fixation, radiological graft site remodelling, and revision failures. RESULTS: Mean follow-up was 39.5 months (36 to 71), with a significant improvement in post-revision function compared to preoperative function. Graft site remodelling was rated radiologically as moderate in 31 hips (63%) and strong in 12 hips (24%). There were no cases of complete graft site dissolution. No acetabular loosening was identified. None of the patients developed clinically significant heterotopic ossification. There were twelve reoperations: six patients developed post-revision infections, three experienced dislocations, two sustained periprosthetic femur fractures, and one subject had femoral component aseptic loosening. CONCLUSION: Our series reports bone defect restoration with the sole use of a biphasic injectable BGS in the periacetabular region. We did not observe significant graft dissolution. We emphasize that successful graft site remodelling requires meticulous recipient site preparation. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(12):991–997.