Classifications of Acetabular Defects: Do They Provide an Objective Evidence for Complexity of Revision Hip Joint Arthroplasty? (Critical Literature Review and Own Cases)

Cover Page


Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

The present paper bears discussion in nature and doesn’t claim for any scientific evidence.

The purpose is to identify which classification of acetabular defects currently is the most employed in revision hip joint arthroplasty, and how precise this classification reflects the true defect severity and gives the objective grounds for selection of revision implants.

Materials and methods. The authors conducted literature analysis in PubMed and eLIBRARY for the last five years. 170 publications in English, German and Spanish languages as well as 15 works in Russian language dedicated to classification of acetabular defects were selected.

Results. W.Paprosky classification was found to be the most applicable, namely, in 65,9% of foreign publications and in 100% of Russian papers. AAOS classification was used in 22.9% of cases, Gross and Saleh — in 4.1%, Gustilo and Pasternak — in 1.2%. 5.9% publications reported use of two classifications. The reasons for Paprosky classification popularity is the possibility to evaluate defect basing on standard pelvis x-rays in preoperative stage as well as in retrospective research. At the same time, according to literature, the confidence of Paprosky classification (accuracy of correspondence to intraoperative findings) varies from 16 to 66% for different areas of acetabulum, and during reliability assessment (consistency between different specialists) kappa coefficient varies from 0.14 to 0.75 depending on experience of the specialist and specifics of the defect. One of the possible reason for discrepancies in assessment of defect grade are the iatrogenic and posttraumatic changes of the acetabulum. Nevertheless, Paprosky classification is evolving and, considering additional parameters, like type of defect (contained or non-contained) and pelvic ring continuity, it allows to create a full-fledge algorithm for selection of revision implants and defect replacement which is adequate to the up-to-date surgical needs. At the same time onrush of digital technologies of 3D-visualization considerably expands our possibilities for preoperative defects assessment and offers promising potential for development of new classifications, whose benefits are yet to be evaluated.

About the authors

R. M. Tikhilov

Vreden Russian Research Institute of Traumatology and Orthopedics; Mechnikov North-Western State Medical University

Email: fake@neicon.ru

Rashid M. Tikhilov — Dr. Sci. (Med.), professor, director of Vreden RRITO; professor of Traumatology and orthopedics Department, Mechnikov NWSMU.

St. Petersburg

Russian Federation

I. I. Shubnyakov

Vreden Russian Research Institute of Traumatology and Orthopedics

Author for correspondence.
Email: shubnyakov@mail.ru

Igor I. Shubnyakov — Dr. Sci. (Med.), chief researcher.

St. Petersburg

Russian Federation

A. O. Denisov

Vreden Russian Research Institute of Traumatology and Orthopedics

Email: fake@neicon.ru

Alexei O. Denisov - Cand. Sci. (Med), academic secretary.

St. Petersburg Russian Federation

References

  1. Мурылев В.Ю., Куковенко Г.А., Елизаров П.М., Иваненко Л.Р., Сорокина Г.Л., Рукин Я.А., Алексеев С.С., Германов В.Г. Алгоритм первого этапа лечения поздней глубокой перипротезной инфекции тазобедренного сустава. Травматология и ортопедия России. 2018;24(4):95-104. doi: 10.21823/2311-2905-2018-24-4-95-104.
  2. Cадовой М.А., Павлов В.В., Базлов В.А., Мамуладзе Т.З., Ефименко М.Ф., Аронов А.М., Панченко А.А. Возможности 3D-визуализации дефектов вертлужной впадины на этапе предоперационного планирования первичного и ревизионного эндопротезирования тазобедренного сустава. Вестник травматологии и ортопедии им. Н.Н. Приорова. 2017;(3):37-42. doi: 10.32414/0869-8678-2017-3-37-42.
  3. Bozic K.J., Kamath A.F., Ong K., Lau E., Kurtz S., Chan V. Et al. Comparative epidemiology of Revision Arthroplasty: failed THA Poses Greater clinical and Economic Burdens Than Failed TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473(6):2131-2138. doi: 10.1007/s11999-014-4078-8.
  4. Yoon P.W., Lee Y.K., Ahn J., Jang E.J., Kim Y., Kwak H.S. et al. Epidemiology of hip replacements in Korea from 2007 to 2011. J Korean Med Sci. 2014;29(6):852-858. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2014.29.6.852.
  5. Gwam C.U., Mistry J.B., Mohamed N.S., Thomas M., Bigart K.C., Mont M.A., Delanois R.E. Current epidemiology of revision total hip arthroplasty in the united States: National Inpatient Sample 2009 to 2013. J Arthroplasty. 2017;32(7):2088-2092. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2017.02.046.
  6. Patel A., Pavlou G., Mujica-Mota R.E., Toms A.D. The epidemiology of revision total knee and hip arthroplasty in England and Wales: a comparative analysis with projections for the united States. A study using the National Joint Registry dataset. Bone Joint J. 2015; 97-B(8):1076-1081. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.97B8.35170.
  7. Kasch R., Assmann G., Merk S., Barz T., Melloh M., Hofer A. Et al. Economic analysis of two-stage septic revision after total hip arthroplasty: What are the relevant costs for the hospital’s orthopedic department? BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2016;17:112. doi: 10.1186/s12891-016-0962-6.
  8. Koenig L., Feng C., He F., Nguyen J.T. The effects of revision total hip arthroplasty on medicare spending and beneficiary outcomes: implications for the comprehensive care for joint replacement model. J Arthroplasty. 2018;33(9):2764-2769.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2018.05.008.
  9. Kurtz S.M., Lau E.C., Ong K.L., Adler E.M., Kolisek F.R., Manley M.T. Which clinical and patient factors influence the national economic burden of hospital readmissions after total joint arthroplasty? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017;475(12):2926-2937. doi: 10.1007/s11999-017-5244-6.
  10. Тихилов Р.М., Шубняков И.И., Коваленко А.Н., Тотоев З.А., Лю Б., Билык С.С. Структура ранних ревизий эндопротезирования тазобедренного сустава. Травматология и ортопедия России. 2014;(2):5-13. doi: 10.21823/2311-2905-2014-0-2-5-13.
  11. Badarudeen S., Shu A.C., Ong K.L., Baykal D., Lau E., Malkani A.L. Complications after revision total hip arthroplasty in the medicare population. J Arthroplasty. 2017;32(6):1954-1958. doi: 10.1016/j.Arth.2017.01.037.
  12. Khatod M., Cafri G., Inacio M.C., Schepps A.L., Paxton EW., Bini S.A. Revision total hip arthoplasty: factors associated with re-revision surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015;97(5):359-366. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.N.00073.
  13. Nichols C.I., Vose J.G. Clinical outcomes and costs within 90 days of primary or revision total joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2016;31(7):1400-1406.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2016.01.022.
  14. Jafari S.M., Coyle C., Mortazavi S.M., Sharkey P.F., Parvizi J. Revision hip arthroplasty: infection is the most common cause of failure. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(8):2046-2051. doi: 10.1007/s11999-010-1251-6.
  15. Sheridan G.A., Kelly R.M., Mcdonnell S.M., Walsh F., o’Byrne J.M., Kenny P.J. Primary total hip arthroplasty: registry data for fixation methods and bearing options at a minimum of 10 years. Ir J Med Sci. 2018 Dec 17. doi: 10.1007/s11845-018-1948-1. [Epub ahead of print].
  16. Руководство по хирургии тазобедренного сустава. Под ред. Р.М. Тихилова, И.И. Шубнякова. Спб., 2014. Т. 1, Гл. 7. С. 221-256.
  17. Павлов B.B., Кирилова И.В., Ефименко М.В., Базлов В.А., Мамуладзе Т.З. Двухэтапное реэндопротезирование тазобедренного сустава при обширном дефекте костной ткани вертлужной впадины (случай из практики). Травматология и ортопедия России. 2017;23(4):125-133. doi: 10.21823/2311-2905-2017-23-4-125-133
  18. Campbell D.G., Garbuz D.S., Masri B.A., Duncan C.P. Reliability of acetabular bone defect classification systems in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2001;16(1):83-86.
  19. Jenkins D.R., odland A.N., Sierra R.J., Hanssen A.D., Lewallen D.G. Minimum five-year outcomes with porous tantalum acetabular cup and augment construct in complex revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017;99(10):e49. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.16.00125.
  20. Kavalerskiy G.M., Murylev V.Y., Rukin Y.A., Elizarov P.M., Lychagin A.V., Tselisheva E.Y. Three-dimensional models in planning of revision hip arthroplasty with complex acetabular defects. Indian J Orthop. 2018;52(6):625-630. doi: 10.4103/ortho.ijortho_556_16.
  21. Pierannunzii L., Zagra L. Bone grafts, bone graft extenders, substitutes and enhancers for acetabular reconstruction in revision total hip arthroplasty. EFORT Open Rev. 2017;1(12):431-439. doi: 10.1302/2058-5241.160025.
  22. Gross A.E., Allan D.G., Catre M., Garbuz D.S., Stockley I. Bone grafts in hip replacement surgery. The pelvic side. Orthop Clin North Am. 1993;24(4):679-695.
  23. Parry M.C., Whitehouse M.R., Mehendale S.A., Smith L.K., Webb J.C., Spencer R.F., Blom A.W. A Comparison of the validity and reliability of established bone stock loss classification systems and the proposal of a novel classification system. Hip Int. 2010;20(1):50-55.
  24. Paprosky W.G., Perona P.G., Lawrence J.M. Acetabular defect classification and surgical reconstruction in revision arthroplasty. A 6-year follow-up evaluation. J Arthroplasty. 1994;9(1):33-44.
  25. D’Antonio J.A., capello W.N., Borden L.S., Bargar W.L., Bierbaum B.F., Boettcher W.G. et al. Classification and management of acetabular abnormalities in total hip arthroplasty. Clin orthoprelatres. 1989;(243):126-137.
  26. Saleh K.J., Holtzman J., Gafni asaleh L., Jaroszynski G., Wong P., Woodgate I. Et al. Development, test reliability and validation of a classification for revision hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Res. 2001;19(1):50-56.
  27. Ahmad A.O., Schwarzkopf R. Clinical evaluation and surgical options in acetabular reconstruction: A literature review. J Orthop. 2015;12(Suppl2):S238-243. doi: 10.1016/j.jor.2015.10.011.
  28. Amirouche F., Solitro G.F., Walia A., Gonzalez M., Bobko A. Segmental acetabular rim defects, bone loss, oversizing, and press fit cup in total hip arthroplasty evaluated with a probabilistic finite element analysis. Int Orthop. 2017;41(8):1527-1533. doi: 10.1007/s00264-016-3369-y.
  29. Baauw M., van Hooff M.L., Spruit M. Current construct options for revision of large acetabular defects: a systematic review. JBJS Rev. 2016;4(11). Pii: 10.2106/ JBJS.RVW.15.00119. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.RVW.15.00119.
  30. Lee J.M., Kim T.H. Acetabular Cup Revision Arthroplasty Using Morselized Impaction Allograft. Hip Pelvis. 2018;30(2):65-77. doi: 10.5371/hp.2018.30.2.65.
  31. Horas K., Arnholdt J., Steinert A.F., Hoberg M., Rudert M., Holzapfel B.M. Acetabular defect classification in times of 3D imaging and patient-specific treatment protocols. Orthopade. 2017;46(2):168-178. doi: 10.1007/s00132-016-3378-y.
  32. Makinen T.J., Kuzyk P., Safir O.A., Backstein D., Gross A.E. Role of cages in revision arthroplasty of the acetabulum. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016;98(3):233-242. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.O.00143.
  33. Wassilew G.I., Janz V., Perka C., Muller M. [Treatment of acetabular defects with the trabecular metal revision system]. Orthopade. 2017;46(2):148-157. (In German). doi: 10.1007/s00132-016-3381-3.
  34. Gustilo R.B., Pasternak H.S. Revision total hip arthroplasty with titanium ingrowth prosthesis and bone grafting for failed cemented femoral component loosening. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988;(235):111-119.
  35. Sheth N.P., Melnic C.M., Paprosky W.G. Acetabular distraction: an alternative for severe acetabular bone loss and chronic pelvic discontinuity. Bone Joint J. 2014;96-B(11 Supple A):36-42. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.96B11.34455.
  36. Sheth N.P., Nelson C.L., Springer B.D., Fehring T.K., Paprosky W.G. Acetabular bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty: evaluation and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2013;21(3):128-139. doi: 10.5435/JAAOS-21-03-128.
  37. Bettin D., Katthagen B.D. [The German Society of Orthopedics and Traumatology classification of bone defects in total hip endoprostheses revision operations]. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb. 1997;135(4):281-284. (In German). doi: 10.1055/s-2008-1039389.
  38. Koob S., Scheidt S., Randau T.M., Gathen M., Wimmer M.D., Wirtz D.C., Gravius S. [Biological downsizing: Acetabular defect reconstruction in revision total hip arthroplasty]. Orthopade. 2017;46(2):158-167. (In German). doi: 10.1007/s00132-16-3379-x.
  39. Telleria J.J., Gee A.O. Classifications in brief: Paprosky classification of acetabular bone loss. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471(11):3725-3730. doi: 10.1007/s11999-013-3264-4.
  40. Yu R., Hofstaetter J.G., Sullivan T., Costi K., Howie D.W., Solomon L.B. Validity and reliability of the Paprosky acetabular defect classification. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471(7):2259-2265. doi: 10.1007/s11999-013-2844-7.
  41. Jerosch J., Steinbeck J., Fuchs S., Kirchhoff C. [Radiologic evaluation of acetabular defects on acetabular loosening of hip alloarthroplasty]. Unfallchirurg. 1996;99(10):727-733. (In German).
  42. Gozzard C., Blom A., Taylor A., Smith E., Learmonth I. A comparison of the reliability and validity of bone stock loss classification systems used for revision hip surgery. J Arthroplasty. 2003;18(5):638-642.
  43. Claus A.M., Engh C.A. Jr, Sychterz C.J., Xenos J.S., Orishimo K.F., Engh C.A. Sr. Radiographic definition of pelvic osteolysis following total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85-A(8):1519-1526.
  44. Safir O., Lin C., Kosashvili Y., Mayne I.P., Gross A.E., Backstein D. Limitations of conventional radiographs in the assessment of acetabular defects following total hip arthroplasty. Can J Surg. 2012;55(6):401-407. doi: 10.1503/cjs.000511.
  45. Paprosky W.G., O’Rourke M., Sporer S.M. The treatment of acetabular bone defects with an associated pelvic discontinuity. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;441:216-220.
  46. Sheth N.P., Melnic C.M., Brown N., Sporer S.M., Paprosky W.G. Two-centre radiological survivorship of acetabular distraction technique for treatment of chronic pelvic discontinuity. Bone Joint J. 2018;100-B(7):909-914. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.100B7.BJJ-2017-1551.R1.
  47. Liu B., Gao Y.H., Ding L., Li S.O., Liu J.G., Oi X. Computed Tomographic Evaluation of Bone Stock in Patients With Crowe Type III Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip: Implications for Guiding Acetabular Component Placement using the High Hip Center Technique. J Arthroplasty. 2018;33(3):915-918. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2017.10.021.
  48. Chen M., Luo Z.L., Wu K.R., Zhang X.O., Ling X.D., Shang X.F. Cementless Total Hip Arthroplasty With a High Hip Center for Hartofilakidis Type B Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip: Results of Midterm Follow-Up. J Arthroplasty. 2016;31(5):1027-1034. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2015.11.009.
  49. Коваленко A.H., Тихилов Р.М., Билык С.С., Шубняков И.И., Черкасов М.А., Денисов A.O. Позиционирование индивидуальных вертлужных компонентов при ревизиях тазобедренного сустава: действительно ли они подходят как «ключ к замку»? Вестник травматологии и ортопедии им. Н.Н. Приорова. 2017;(4): 31-37. doi: 10.32414/0869-8678-2017-4-31-37.
  50. Корыткин A.A., Захарова Д.В., Новикова Я.С., Горбатов Р.О., Ковалдов К.А., Эль Мудни Ю.М. Опыт применения индивидуальных трехфланцевых вертлужных компонентов при ревизионном эндопротезировании тазобедренного сустава. Травматология и ортопедия России. 2017;23(4): 101-111. doi: 10.21823/2311-2905-2017-23-4-101-111.
  51. Eggermont F., Derikx L.C., Free J., van Leeuwen R., van der linden Y.M., Verdonschot N., Tanck E. Effect of different ct scanners and settings on femoral failure loads calculated by finite element models. J Orthop Res. 2018 Mar 6. doi: 10.1002/jor.23890. [Epub ahead of print].

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

Copyright (c)


СМИ зарегистрировано Федеральной службой по надзору в сфере связи, информационных технологий и массовых коммуникаций (Роскомнадзор).
Регистрационный номер и дата принятия решения о регистрации СМИ: серия ПИ № ФС 77 - 82474 от 10.12.2021.


This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies