Cup-cage constructs in revision total hip arthroplasty for pelvic discontinuity

Abstract

AimsPelvic discontinuity is a challenging acetabular defect without a consensus on surgical management. Cup-cage reconstruction is an increasingly used treatment strategy. The present study evaluated implant survival, clinical and radiological outcomes, and complications associated with the cup-cage construct.MethodsWe included 53 cup-cage construct (51 patients) implants used for hip revision procedures for pelvic discontinuity between January 2003 and January 2022 in this retrospective review. Mean age at surgery was 71.8 years (50.0 to 92.0; SD 10.3), 43/53 (81.1%) were female, and mean follow-up was 6.4 years (0.02 to 20.0; SD 4.6). Patients were implanted with a Trabecular Metal Revision Shell with either a ZCA cage (n = 12) or a TMARS cage (n = 40, all Zimmer Biomet). Pelvic discontinuity was diagnosed on preoperative radiographs and/or intraoperatively. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed, with failure defined as revision of the cup-cage reconstruction.ResultsThe five-year all-cause survival for cup-cage reconstruction was 73.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 61.4 to 85.4), while the ten- and 15-year survival was 63.7% (95% CI 46.8 to 80.6). Survival due to aseptic loosening was 93.4% (95% CI 86.2 to 100.0) at five, ten, and 15 years. The rate of revision for aseptic loosening, infection, and dislocation was 3/53 (5.7%), 7/53 (13.2%), and 6/53 (11.3%), respectively. The mean leg length discrepancy improved (p < 0.001) preoperatively from a mean of 18.2 mm (0 to 80; SD 15.8) to 7.0 mm (0 to 35; SD 9.8) at latest follow-up. The horizontal and vertical hip centres improved (p < 0.001) preoperatively from a mean of 9.2 cm (5.6 to 17.5; SD 2.3) to 10.1 cm (6.2 to 13.4; SD 2.1) and 9.3 cm (4.7 to 15.8; SD 2.5) to 8.0 cm (3.7 to 12.3; SD 1.7), respectively.ConclusionCup-cage reconstruction provides acceptable outcomes in the management of pelvic discontinuity. One in four constructs undergo revision within five years, most commonly for periprosthetic joint infection, dislocation, or aseptic loosening.Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(5 Supple B):66–73.