These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Acetabular bone defects in THA revision: Reconstruction using morsellised virus-inactivated bone allograft and reinforcement ring. Seven-year outcomes in 95 patients.
    Author: Villatte G, Erivan R, Salles G, Pereira B, Galvin M, Descamps S, Boisgard S.
    Journal: Orthop Traumatol Surg Res; 2017 Jun; 103(4):543-548. PubMed ID: 28366746.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Acetabular cup loosening is among the main reasons for revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). The implantation of a cryopreserved morsellised bone allograft is a reference method for filling bone defects. However, the outcomes of bone grafts treated with viral inactivation and secured into the host bone (notably using a reinforcement device) are unclear. We therefore retrospectively reviewed cases of acetabular revision with morsellised bone allograft implanted into a reinforcement ring for acetabular revision to assess: (1) clinical survival of the acetabular implant (time to new revision with acetabular component removal), (2) radiological implant survival, (3) and bone graft osseointegration evaluated using Oswestry's criteria. HYPOTHESIS: Virus-inactivated bone allografts provide similar outcomes to cryopreserved allografts. MATERIAL AND METHODS: From 2004 to 2009, 95 patients underwent acetabular revision. There were 60 (63%) females and 35 (37%) males with a mean age of 71.7 years (range: 44.2-90 years). Over 90% of patients had bone defects type 2 or higher in the AAOS classification. Each patient was evaluated after at least 5 years, by an examiner who had not been involved in the revision and who determined the Postel-Merle d'Aubigné (PMA) score and patient satisfaction. We assessed the clinical survival of the acetabular implant (time to new revision with acetabular implant removal), radiological implant survival (migration>5mm, active radiolucent line, failure of graft osseointegration, or reinforcement ring failure), and allograft osteointegration evaluated using Oswestry's criteria. RESULTS: After a mean follow-up of 7years (range: 5.2-10years), 7 (7.4%) patients had been lost to follow-up and 3 (3.4%) had required surgical revision, after 3 to 73 months (for aseptic loosening in 2 cases and infection in 1 case). The estimated 10-year survival rate was 96.2% (95% confidence interval [95%CI]: 88.2-98.7). The mean PMA score at last follow-up had increased significantly, by 2.8 points (p<0.05), to 13.8 (95%CI: 78.4-88.1). Of the 88 re-evaluated patients, 78 (89%) were satisfied or very satisfied. The overall radiological survival rate was 84.5% (95%CI: 78.4-88.1) after a mean of 5.9 years (range: 0.5-10). Allograft osseointegration was satisfactory (Oswestry score≥2) in 95.8% of patients. DISCUSSION: In our population, allografts previously subjected to virus inactivation and implanted into a reinforcement ring produced outcomes similar to those reported previously with cryopreserved allografts. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, retrospective case-series study.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]