Author/Authors :
SirkA, Aurimas Department of Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery, Kantonsspital Baselland, Liestal, Switzerland , ClAuSS, Martin Department of Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery, Kantonsspital Baselland, Liestal, Switzerland , TArASeviCiuS, Sarunas Department of Orthopedics - Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Kaunas, Lithuania , WingSTrAnd, Hans Department of Orthopedics - Lund University and Lund University Hospital, Lund, Sweden , STuCinSkAS, Justinas Department of Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery, Kantonsspital Baselland, Liestal, Switzerland , rOberTSSOn, Otto Department of Orthopedics - Lund University and Lund University Hospital, Lund, Sweden , OCHSner, Peter emil Department of Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery, Kantonsspital Baselland, Liestal, Switzerland , ilCHMAnn, Thomas Department of Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery, Kantonsspital Baselland, Liestal, Switzerland
Abstract :
Background and purpose — The original Müller acetabular rein-
forcement ring (ARR) shows favorable medium-term results for
acetabular reconstruction in total hip arthroplasty, where it is
used when the acetabular bone stock is deficient. However, there
are no data regarding long-term survival of the device. We there-
fore investigated long-term survival and analyzed radiological
modes of failure.
Patients and methods — Between 1984 and 2002, 321 consecu-
tive primary arthroplasties using an ARR were performed in 291
patients. The mean follow-up time was 11 (0–25) years, and 24
hips were lost to follow-up. For survival analysis, we investigated
321 hips and the end of the follow-up was the date of revision,
date of death, or the last patient contact date with implant still in
situ. Radiological assessment was performed for 160 hips with a
minimum of 10 years of follow-up and with radiographs of suf-
ficient quality. It included evaluation of osteolysis, migration, and
loosening.
Results — 12 ARR THAs were revised: 1 isolated ARR revi-
sion for aseptic loosening, 4 revisions of the ARR and the stem for
aseptic loosening, 6 for infection, and 1 for recurrent dislocation.
The cumulative revision rate for all components, for any reason,
at 20 years was 15% (95% CI: 10–22), while for the ARR only it
was 7% (95% CI: 4–12) for any reason and 3.4% (95% CI: 1–9)
for aseptic loosening. 21 (13%) of 160 ARR THAs examined had
radiological changes: 7 had osteolysis but were not loose, and 14
were radiologically loose but were not painful and not revised.
Interpretation — Our data suggest that the long-term survival
of the ARR is excellent.