Loosening and periprosthetic osteolysis are some of the most common long-term complications after hip arthroplasty. The decision-making process and surgical treatment options are controversial.We retrospectively reviewed 96 acetabular revisions (91 patients) performed between 2002 and 2012, with a minimum of 2 years of follow-up and a mean of 5.7 years of follow-up. Clinical outcome was assessed using the Harris Hip Score. The size and location of osteolytic lesions were evaluated using the preoperative radiographs; healing of the defects was categorized using a standardized protocol.Thirty-three (34.4%) hips had isolated liner exchanges (ILEs), 10 (10.4%) hips had cemented liners into well-fixed shells (CLS), 45 (46.9%) hips had full acetabular revisions (FARs), and 8 (8.3%) hips had revision with a roof ring/antiprotrusio cage (RWC). All procedures showed significant improvement in Harris Hip Score after revision (P = .001). Fifteen patients had moderate residual pain (pain score =20): 8 (24%) ILE, 3 (30%) CLS, and 4 (9%) FAR. Complete bone defect healing after grafting was lower with acetabular component retention procedures (ILE and CLS; 27%) compared with full acetabular component revision procedures (FAR and RWC; 57%). Fifteen patients underwent reoperation: 3 ILE, 1 CLS, 8 FAR, and 3 RWC.Acetabular component retention demonstrates a low risk of reoperation; however, residual pain and limited potential for bone graft incorporation are a concern. FAR is technically challenging and may have an elevated risk of reoperation; however, higher degrees of bone graft incorporation and satisfactory clinical outcome can be expected.
View details for DOI 10.1016/j.arth.2017.04.028
View details for PubMedID 28587888