Journal Logo

Institutional members access full text with Ovid®

Extra-Large Uncemented Hemispherical Acetabular Components for Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

Whaley, Andrew L. MD; Berry, Daniel J. MD; Harmsen, W. Scott MS

The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery: September 2001 - Volume 83 - Issue 9 - p 1352-1357
Scientific Articles

Background: Extra-large uncemented components provide several advantages for acetabular revision, but limited information is available on the results of their use. The purpose of this study was to evaluate, at a minimum of five years, the results associated with the use of an extra-large uncemented porous-coated component for acetabular revision in the presence of bone loss.

Methods: Eighty-nine extra-large uncemented hemispherical acetabular components were used for revision after aseptic failure of a total hip arthroplasty in forty‐six men and forty‐three women (mean age at revision, fifty‐nine years; range, thirty to eighty‐three years). The revision implant (a Harris-Galante-I or II cup fixed with screws) had an outside diameter of 66 mm in men and 62 mm in women. Seventy‐nine patients had a segmental or combined segmental and cavitary acetabular bone deficiency before the revision. Particulate bone graft was used in fifty‐four hips and bulk bone graft, in nine.

Results: One patient died with the acetabular component intact and two patients were lost to follow‐up within five years after the operation. At the time of the last follow-­up, four acetabular components had been removed or revised again (two for aseptic loosening). All of the remaining patients were followed clinically for at least five years (mean, 7.2 years; range, 5.0 to 11.3 years). In the hips that were not revised again, only two sockets had definite radiographic evidence of loosening. All four of the sockets that loosened were in hips that had had combined cavitary and segmental bone loss preoperatively. In the hips that were not revised again, the mean modified Harris hip score increased from 56 points preoperatively to 83 points at the time of the most recent follow‐up. The most frequent complication, dislocation of the hip, occurred in eleven patients. The probability of survival of the acetabular component at eight years was 93% (95% confidence interval, 85% to 100%) with removal for any reason as the end point, 98% (95% confidence interval, 92% to 100%) with revision for aseptic loosening as the end point, and 95% (95% confidence interval, 88% to 100%) with radiographic evidence of loosening or revision for aseptic loosening as the end point.

Conclusions: This study demonstrates that extra-large uncemented components used for acetabular revision in the presence of bone loss perform very well and have a low rate of aseptic loosening at the time of intermediate-term follow‐up.

Andrew L. Whaley, MD; Daniel J. Berry, MD; W. Scott Harmsen, MS; Department of Orthopedics, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street S.W., Rochester, MN 55905. E-mail address for D.J. Berry:

Copyright © 2001 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated
You currently do not have access to this article

To access this article: