Aim: To evaluate the clinical and X-ray results of acetabular components and tantalum augments in prosthetic hip revisions.
Methods: Fifty-eight hip prostheses with primary failure of the acetabular component were reviewed with tantalum implants. The clinical records and X-rays of these cases were retrospectively reviewed. Bone defect evaluations were based on preoperative CT scans and classified according to Paprosky criteria of Radiolucent lines and periprosthetic gaps; implant mobilization and osteolysis were evaluated by X-ray. An ad hoc database was created and statistical analyses were performed with SPSS software (IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 23.0). Statistical analyses were carried out using the Student's t test for independent and paired samples. A P value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant and cumulative survival was calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method.
Results: The mean follow-up was 87.6 ± 25.6 mo (range 3-120 mo). 25 cases (43.1%) were classified as minor defects, and 33 cases (56.9%) as major defects. The preoperative HHS rating improved significantly from a mean of 40.7 ± 6.1 (range: 29-53) before revision, to a mean of 85.8 ± 6.1 (range: 70-94) at the end of the follow-up (Student's t test for paired samples: P < 0.001). Considering HHS only at the end of follow-up, no statistically significant difference was observed between patients with a major or minor defect (Student's t test for independent samples: P > 0.05). Radiolucent lines were found in 4 implants (6.9%). Postoperative acetabular gaps were observed in 5 hips (8.6%). No signs of implant mobilization or areas of periprosthetic osteolysis were found in the x-rays at the final follow-up. Only 3 implants failed: 1 case of infection and 2 cases of instability. Defined as the end-point, cumulative survival at 10 years was 95% (for all reasons) and 100% for aseptic loosening of the acetabular component.
Conclusion: The medium-term use of prosthetic tantalum components in prosthetic hip revisions is safe and effective in a wide variety of acetabular bone defects.
Keywords: Acetabular revision; Augment; Biological fixation; Bone defect; Osseointegration; Porous tantalum; Retrospective study.