|
| Author | Year | Number of cases (F/M) | Average age (SD) | The Paprosky classification of bone defect | Type of implant | Follow-up months (SD) | Outcome |
|
| Nehme et al. [30] | 2004 | 16 | N/A | 2 and 3 | Revision shell and modular augments | 31.9 | No implant had evidence of migration or loosening
Good clinical and radiological outcomes at early follow-up; 1 revision for pelvic discontinuity, 1 dislocation, 1 sciatic nerve palsy |
|
| Unger et al. [31] | 2005 | 60 | N/A | N/A | Tantalum cup with screws | 42 | 7 cases of dislocation and 1 case of aseptic loosening |
|
| Paprosky et al. [25] | 2005 | 12 (versus 12 patients reconstructed with cage) | 61 | 3 (all pelvic discontinuity) | Trabecular metal cup with or without augments | 25.2 | 11 patients with no or moderate pain in tantalum group versus 8 patients in cage group; 1 aseptic loosening case in the tantalum group versus 8 cases in the cage group |
|
| Sporer and Paprosky [32] | 2006 | 28 | 64 | 3A | Trabecular metal cup plus superior augment | 37.2 | All hips radiographically stable; no revision; good clinical outcome |
|
| Sporer and Paprosky [33] | 2006 | 13 | N/A | 3B (pelvic discontinuity) | Revision shell with/without augments | 31.2 | 1 possible radiographic loosening; no revision surgery
Reliable and reproducible short-term results in pelvic discontinuity |
|
| Weeden and Schmidt [29] | 2007 | 43 | N/A | 3A, 3B (10 pelvic discontinuity cases) | Trabecular metal cup with or without augments | 33.6 | 1 septic loosening case
98% success rate; excellent option in revision TKA |
|
| Malkani et al. [34] | 2009 | 25 (16/9) | 71.7 (10.5) | 2 or 3 | Revision shell with/without augments | 39 (11) | 21 well-fixed and functioning implants, with ingrowth along the tantalum surface; no dislocation or aseptic loosening |
|
| Flecher et al. [35] | 2008 | 23 | 58.2 | 3A, 3B (8 pelvic discontinuity cases) | Revision shell with or without augments | 35 | No mechanical failure
Suitable options for type III defects and alternative options to bone graft and cages |
|
| Van Kleunen et al. [42] | 2009 | 90 (50/40) | 59 | Minimum 2A | Revision shell with/without augments; 2 antiprotrusio cage cases | 45 | 8 revisions for infection and 1 case for instability; no revision for aseptic loosening |
|
| Siegmeth et al. [21] | 2009 | 34 (19/15) | 64 | 2, 3 (2 pelvic discontinuity cases) | Trabecular metal shell with augments and screws | 34 | 2 aseptic failures; good clinical and radiological outcomes at short-term follow-up |
|
| Lakstein et al. [36] | 2009 | 53 (24/29) | 63 | Less than 50% of contact | Trabecular metal cups | 45 | 2 failed cup cases (4%); other 2 cups with radiological signs of aseptic loosening; 4 dislocation cases, 1 sciatic nerve palsy case |
|
| Jafari et al. [43] | 2010 | 283 (128/155) | 69 | Mixed | Tantalum cup (79) versus titanium cup (207) | 43.6 | Failure rate: titanium 8%, tantalum 6%
Higher failure rate in massive bone deficiency for titanium cups
Radiographically better fixation for tantalum cups |
|
| Flecher et al. [37] | 2010 | 71 (41/30) | 60 | Mixed | Tantalum cup with/without augments | 48 | No radiolucent lines, 3 revisions for instability
Good restoration of rotation center of the hip |
|
| Fernández-Fairen et al. [44] | 2010 | 263 (150/113) | 69.5 | Mixed | Monoblock or revision shell with or without augments | 73.6 | 85.9% of satisfied patients
All cups were stable, no revision, no radiolucent lines |
|
| Lachiewicz and Soileau [19] | 2010 | 37 (19/18) | 65.1 | 3 | Tantalum cups and augments | 39.6 | 97% of well-fixed component; 1 mechanical failure; 7 revisions (dislocation, infection, periprosthetic fracture) |
|
| Ballester Alfaro and Sueiro Fernandez [27] | 2010 | 19 (12/7) | 63 | 3A and 3B | Cup-cage constructs | 26 | No mechanical failures
Buttress tantalum augments, with cup-cage construct for severe bone defects can be a viable option |
|
| Skyttä et al. [45] | 2011 | 827 (522/447) | 69.1 | N/A | Trabecular metal revision shell | 36 | The 3-year overall survivorship was 92%; 2% revision for aseptic loosening; each additional year in age decreased the risk of revision by 2.4% |
|
| Davies et al. [38] | 2011 | 46 (24/22) | 66.7 | 2C or 3 | Tantalum cups with or without augments or buttress plate | 50 | 1 infection, 2 dislocations, and 1 arterial bleeding
Good clinical outcomes; no loosening |
|
| Del Gaizo et al. [39] | 2012 | 36 | 60 | 3A | Tantalum cups and augments | 26 | One aseptic loosening; 7 revisions (dislocation, infection, periprosthetic fracture)
Reasonable function with low rates of loosening at midterm follow-up |
|
| Gehrke et al. [40] | 2013 | 46 (28/18) | 65 | 2B, 3A | Tantalum cups and augments | 46 | 4 hips of dislocation; 2 revisions because of early loosening; tantalum implants were radiographically stable and osteointegrated |
|
| Batuyong et al. [28] | 2014 | 24 | 67 | 3, 4 | Trabecular metal shell with/without augments and cage | 37 | 92% osteointegration; 2 failures for septic loosening |
|
| Moličnik et al. [20] | 2014 | 25 (11/14) | 69.7 | Minimum 2A | Trabecular metal shell with/without augments | 20.9 | No aseptic loosening; 1 revision for traumatic dislocation; it is a suitable option in revision THA with good short-term outcomes |
|
| Abolghasemian et al. [47] | 2014 | 26 (20/4) versus 19 (18/1) treated with cage | 65 | All pelvic discontinuity | Cup-cage construct versus cage | 82 | 4 major complications in cup-cage group versus 9 in the cage group; all discontinuity healed in cup-cage group, only 3 in the cage group; 3 early migrations in the cup-cage group |
|
| Long et al. [46] | 2015 | 599 (345/254) | 65.5 | N/A | Revision shell | 24 | 7.8% of reoperations; 2.3% of cup removal (12/14 for septic loosening); no revision for aseptic loosening |
|
| Amenabar et al. [48] | 2016 | 64 (50/14) | 66 | 3 and 4 (61% of pelvic discontinuity) | Cup-cage construct | 74 | 93% and 85% of, respectively, 5 and 10 years of cumulative survivorship; it is a suitable option in pelvic discontinuity |
|
