Abstract

BackgroundSevere acetabular bone loss encountered during revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) poses a clinical challenge. In cases involving pelvic discontinuity, where the ilium is separated superiorly from the inferior ischiopubic segment through the acetabulum, acetabular distraction may be used to restore the biomechanics of the hemipelvis. This technique allows for correct sizing of the acetabulum, and the subsequent peripheral distraction and medial compression at the discontinuity provide initial mechanical stability and biological fixation as bone in growth occurs. Accordingly, this study aimed to assess long-term 5-year outcomes following acetabular distraction across 2 institutions. MethodsWe retrospectively identified all patients who underwent revision THA in which the acetabular distraction technique was performed for the treatment of chronic pelvic discontinuity between 2002 and 2018. Demographic, operative, and clinical postoperative data were collected. Clinical endpoints included postoperative radiographic outcomes, complications requiring additional surgery, and reoperation for all causes. Only patients who had a minimum 5-year follow-up were included in this study. ResultsA total of 15 patients (Paprosky IIC: one patient, 6.7%; Paprosky IIIA: 5 patients, 33.3%; Paprosky IIIB: 9 patients, 60%) who had a mean follow-up time of 9 years (range, 5.1 to 13.5) were analyzed. Porous tantalum augments were used in 11 (73.3%) cases to primarily address posteriorsuperior defects (100%). There were 4 (26.7%) patients that required reoperation, only 2 of which were for indications related to the acetabular construct, leading to an overall survivorship of 86.7%. Both patients had a prior revision THA before the implementation of the distraction technique. Evidence of bridging callus formation was reported radiographically for 14 (93.3%) patients at the time of the last clinical follow-up. ConclusionsFor patients who have chronic pelvic discontinuity, acetabular distraction shows promising long-term outcomes. Even so, larger multi-center studies are needed to better support the efficacy of this technique. Level of EvidenceLevel III, retrospective comparative study.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call