Reconstruction of a hip socket using trabecular metal components

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access


Introduction. Fixation of the acetabular component in patients with bone defects of the acetabulum is a difficult task due to the insufficient quantity and poor quality of the remaining bone tissue. During the last few years in our country in arthroplasty of the acetabulum with severe bone defects were actively used implants made of trabecular metal. Purpose of study: was to evaluate short-term clinical and radiological results of the usage of trabecular metal components in patients with bone defects in revision and primary hip replacement. Patients and methods. 59 surgeries were performed using components of trabecular metal, 53 of them were performed on the instability of the hip prosthesis, 2 - post-traumatic hip dysplasia, 2 - aseptic necrosis of the femoral head, 2 - high dislocation of the femoral head. Among the operated there were 37 women and 22 men, the average age was 58.2±19.9 years. According to the Paprosky classification, defects in 12 cases corresponded to type IIA, in 14 - type IIB, in 6 - type II, in 19 - type IIIA, in 7 - type IIIB. The structural features of these implants, made of tantalum in a carbon skeleton with uniform porosity, similar to the structure of bone tissue, provide an increased coefficient of friction, thereby contributing to the rapid growth of bone tissue in the implant structure. Results. The average follow-up period was 14 months. The average preoperative assessment of the hip joint by Harris Hip Score (HHS) was 43 points (from 14 to 86). After surgery, the average HHS improved to 88.7 (69 to 100). 1 patient had hemorrhagic discharge after surgery. On the 7th day an audit was performed. In 2 cases, paresis of the peroneal portion of the sciatic nerve developed after surgery. There were no cases of recurrent dislocations, deep infection, pulmonary embolism or death as a result of operations. Conclusion. Taking into account the mechanical properties, tantalum implants allow to achieve a stable primary fixation with the restoration of the center of rotation of the hip joint and eliminate the risks associated with the use of allografts. Conflict of interest: the authors state no conflict of interest Funding: the study was performed with no external funding

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

N. V Zagorodny

N.N. Priorov National Medical Research Center of Traumatology and Orthopaedics; Peoples’ Friendship University

Moscow, Russia

O. A Alexanyan

N.N. Priorov National Medical Research Center of Traumatology and Orthopaedics

Moscow, Russia

G. A Cragan

N.N. Priorov National Medical Research Center of Traumatology and Orthopaedics

Moscow, Russia

S. V Kagramanov

N.N. Priorov National Medical Research Center of Traumatology and Orthopaedics

Moscow, Russia

B. U Iwunze

N.N. Priorov National Medical Research Center of Traumatology and Orthopaedics

Moscow, Russia


  1. Мурылев В.Ю. Ревизионная артропластика тазобедренного сустава при асептическом расшатывании эндопротеза. Дис. … д-ра мед. наук. М.; 2009.
  2. Kurtz S., Ong K., Lau E. et al. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(4):780.
  3. Загородний Н.В., Чрагян Г.А., Алексанян О.А., Каграманов С.В., Полевой Е.В. Применение 3D-моделирования и прототипирования при первичном и ревизионном эндопротезировании. Вестник травматологии и ортопедии им. Н.Н. Приорова. 2018;2:21-9.
  4. Sullivan P.M., MacKenzie J.R., Callaghan J.J., Johnston R.C. Total hip arthroplasty with cement in patients who are less than fifty years old. A sixteen to twenty-two-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1994;76(6):863-9.
  5. Paprosky W.G., Perona P.G., Lawrence J.M. Acetabular defect classification and surgical reconstruction in revision arthroplasty. A 6-year follow-up evaluation. J Arthroplasty. 1994;9:33.
  6. Dearborn J.T., Harris W.H. High placement of an acetabular component inserted without cement in a revision total hip arthroplasty. Results after a mean of ten years. J Bone Joint Surg [Am]. 1999;81-A:469-80.
  7. Whaley A.L., Berry D.J., Harmsen W.S. Extra-large uncemented hemispherical acetabular components for revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg. 2001;83-A:1352-7.
  8. Gross A.E., Saleh K.J., Wong P. Acetabular revision using grafts and cages. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 2002;31:213-5.
  9. Rosenberg W.J., Schreurs B.W., de Waal Malefijt M.C. et al. Impacted morselized bone grafting and cemented primary total hip arthroplasty for acetabular protrusion in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Acta Orthop Scand. 2000;71:143-7.
  10. Saleh K.J., Jaroszynski G., Woodgate I., Saleh L., Gross A.E. Revision total hip arthroplasty with the use of structural acetabular allograft and reconstruction ring: acase series with a 10-year average follow-up. J Arthroplasty. 2000;15:951-8.
  11. Schreurs B.W., Slooff T.J., Buma P., Gardeniers J.W., Huiskes R. Acetabular reconstruction with impacted morsellised cancellous bone graft and cement. A 10- to 15-year follow-up of 60 revision arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg [Br]. 1998;80-B:391-5.
  12. Schreurs B.W., van Tieuen T.G., Buma P. et al. Favourable results of acetabular reconstruction with impacted morselized grafts in patients younger than fifty years. Acta Orthop Scand. 2001;72:120-6.
  13. Shinar A.A., Harris W.H. Bulk structural autogenous grafts and allografts for reconstruction of the acetabulum in total hip arthroplasty. Sixteen-year-average follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg [Am]. 1997;79-A:159-68.
  14. Welten M.L.M., Schreurs B.W., Buma P., Verdonschot N., Slooff T.J. Acetabular reconstruction with impacted morcellizedcancellousautograft and cemented primary total hip arthroplasty: a 10- to 17-year follow-up study. J Arthroplasty. 2000;15:819-24.
  15. Berry D.J., Müller M.E. Revision arthroplasty using an anti-protrusio cage for massive acetabular bone deficiency. J Bone Joint Surg [Br]. 1992;74-B:711-5.
  16. Gross A.E., Goodman S. The current role of structural grafts and cages in revision arthroplasty of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;429:193-200.
  17. Peters C.L., Curtain M., Samuelson K.M. Acetabular revision with the Burch-Schnieder antiprotrusio cage and cancellous allograft bone. J Arthroplasty. 1995;10:307-12.
  18. Berasi C.C. IV, Berend K.R., Adams J.B., Ruh E.L., Lombardi A.V.Jr. Are custom triflange acetabular components effective for reconstruction of catastrophic bone loss? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473:528-35.
  19. Мурылев В.Ю., Терентьев Д.И., Елизаров П.М. и др. Тотальное эндопротезирование тазобедренного сустава с использованием танталовых конструкций. Вестник травматологии и ортопедии им. Н.Н. Приорова. 2012;1:24-9.
  20. Berasi C.C., Berend K.R., Adams J.B., Ruh E.L., Lombardi A.V. Are custom triflange acetabular components effective for reconstruction of catastrophic bone loss? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;473(2):528-35.
  21. Hogan C., Ries M. Treatment of massive acetabular bone loss and pelvic discontinuity with a custom triflange component and ilio-sacral fixation based on preoperative CT templating. A report of 2 cases. Hip Int. 2015;25(6):585-8.
  22. Taunton M.J., Fehring T.K., Edwards P., Bernasek T., Holt G.E., Christie M.J. Pelvic discontinuity treated with custom triflange component: a reliable option. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470(2):428-34.
  23. DeBoer D.K., Christie M.J., Brinson M.F., Morrison J.C. Revision total hip arthroplasty for pelvic discontinuity. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(4):835-40.
  24. Bobyn J.D., Stackpool G.J., Hacking S.A., Tanzer M., Krygier J.J. Characteristics of bone ingrowth and interface mechanics of a new porous tantalum biomaterial. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1999;81(5):907-14.
  25. Levinea B.R., Sporera S., Poggieb R.A., Della Vallea C.J., Jacobs J.J. Experimental and clinical performance of porous tantalum in orthopedic surgery. Elsevier Ltd.; 2006.
  26. Cohen R. A porous tantalum trabecular metal: Basic science. Am J Orthop. 2002;31(4):216-7.
  27. Black J. Biological performance of tantalum. Clin Mater. 1994;16(3):167-73.
  28. Kato H., Nakamura T., Nishiguchi S., Matsusue Y., Kobayashi M., Miyazaki T. et al. Bonding of alkali- and heat-treated tantalum implants to bone. J Biomed Mater Res. 2000;53(1):28-35.
  29. Bermudez M.D., Carrion F.J., Martinez-Nicolas G., Lopez R. Erosion-corrosion of stainless steels, titanium, tantalum and zirconium. Wear. 2005;258:693-700.
  30. Borland W.S., Bhattacharya R., Holland J.P., Brewster N.T. Use of porous trabecular metal augments with impaction bone grafting in management of acetabular bone loss Early to medium-term results. Acta Orthopaedica. 2012;83(4):347-52.
  31. Flecher X., Sporer S., Paprosky W. Management of Severe Bone Loss in Acetabular Revision Using a Trabecular Metal Shell. The Journal of Arthroplasty. 2008;23(7):112.
  32. Gehrke T., Bangert Y., Schwantes B., Gebauer M., Kendoff D. Acetabular revision in THA using tantalum augments combined with impaction bone grafting. HELIOS ENDO-Klinik Hamburg. Germany: Hamburg; 2013.
  33. López-Torres I.I., Sanz-Ruíz P., Sánchez-Pérez C., Andrade-Albarracín R., Vaquero J. Clinical and radiological outcomes of trabecular metal systems and antiprotrusion cages in acetabular revision surgery with severe defects: a comparative study. International Orthopaedics. Aug 2018;42(8):1811-8.
  34. Whitehouse M.R., Masri B.A., Duncan C.P., Garbuz D.S. Continued Good Results With Modular Trabecular Metal Augments for Acetabular Defects in Hip Arthroplasty at 7 to 11 Years. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473:521-7.
  35. Alfaro J.J.B., Fernández J.S. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University Puerto Real Hospital, Cádiz - Spain 2 Surgery Department, School of Medicine, Cádiz - Spain Trabecular Metal buttress augment and the Trabecular Metal cup-cage construct in revision hip arthroplasty for severe acetabular bone loss and pelvic discontinuity. Hip Int. 2010;20(Suppl 7 ):S119-S27.
  36. Lachiewicz P.F., Soileau E.S. Tantalum components in difficult acetabular revisions. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(2):454-8.
  37. Abolghasemian M., Tangsataporn S., Sternheim A., Backstein D., Safir O., Gross A.E. Combined trabecular metal acetabular shell and augment for acetabular revision with substantial bone loss: a mid-term review. Bone Joint J. 2013;95B(2):166-72.
  38. Davies J.H., Laflamme G.Y., Delisle J., Fernandes J. Trabecular metal used for major bone loss in acetabular hip revision. J Arthroplast. 2011;26(8):1245-50.
  39. Del Gaizo D.J., Kancherla V., Sporer S.M., Paprosky W.G. Tantalum augments for Paprosky IIIA defects remain stable at midterm followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470(2):395-401.
  40. Elganzoury I., Bassiony A.A. Early results of trabecular metal augment for acetabular reconstruction in revision hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop Belg. 2013;79(5):530-5.
  41. Fernandez-Fairen M., Murcia A., Blanco A., Merono A., Murcia A., Ballester J. Revision of failed total hip arthroplasty acetabular cups to porous tantalum components a 5-year follow-up study. J Arthroplast. 2010;25(6):865-72.
  42. Flecher X., Paprosky W., Grillo J.C., Aubaniac J.M., Argenson J.N. Do tantalum components provide adequate primary fixation in all acetabular revisions? Orthop Traumatol Surg. 2010;96(3):235-41.
  43. Grappiolo G., Loppini M., Longo U.G., Traverso F., Mazziotta G., Denaro V. Trabecular metal augments for the management of Paprosky type III defects without pelvic discontinuity. J Arthroplast. 2015;30(6):1024-9.
  44. Kim W.Y., Greidanus N.V., Duncan C.P., Masri B.A., Garbuz D.S. Porous tantalum uncemented acetabular shells in revision total hip replacement: two to four year clinical and radiographic results. Hip Int. 2008;18(1):17-22.
  45. Lakstein D., Backstein D., Safir O., Kosashvili Y., Gross A.E. Trabecular metal (TM) cups for acetabular defects with 50% or less host bone contact. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467(9):2318-24.
  46. Molicnik A., Hanc M., Recnik G., Krajnc Z., Rupreht M., Fokter S.K. Porous tantalum shells and augments for acetabular cup revisions. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol Orthop Traumatol. 2014;24(6):911-7.
  47. Simon J.P., Bellemans J. Clinical and radiological evaluation of modular trabecular metal acetabular cups short-term results in 64 hips. Acta Orthop Belg. 2009;75(5):623-30.
  48. Unger A.S., Lewis R.J., Gruen T. Evaluation of a porous tantalum uncemented acetabular cup in revision total hip arthroplasty. Clinical and radiological results of 60 hips. J Arthroplast. 2005;20(8):1002-9.
  49. Van Kleunen J.P., Lee G.C., Lementowski P.W., Nelson C.L., Garino J.P. Acetabular revisions using trabecular metal cups and augments. J Arthroplast. 2009;24(6):64-8.
  50. Weeden S.H., Schmidt R.H. The use of tantalum porous metal implants for Paprosky 3A and 3B defects. J Arthroplast. 2007;22(6):151-5.
  51. Whitehouse M.R., Masri B.A., Duncan C.P., Garbuz D.S. Continued good results with modular trabecular metal augments for acetabular defects in hip arthroplasty at 7 to 11 years. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473(2):521-7.
  52. Crowe J.F., Mani V.J., Ranawat C.S. Total hip replacement in congenital dislocation and dysplasia of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1979;61:15-23.
  53. Berry D.J. Antiprotrusio cages for acetabular revision. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004;420:106.
  54. Wachtl S.W., Jung M., Jakob R.P. et al. The Burch- Schneider antiprotrusio cage in acetabular revision surgery: a mean follow-up of 12 years. J Arthroplasty. 2000;15:959.
  55. Schatzker J.,Wong M.K. Acetabular revision. The role of rings and cages. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999;369:187.
  56. Berry D.J., Muller M.E. Revision arthroplasty using an anti-protrusio cage for massive acetabular bone deficiency. J Bone Joint Surg [Br]. 1992;74:711.
  57. Van Haaren E.H., Heyligers I.C., Alexander F.G., Wuisman P.I. High rate of failure of impaction grafting in large acetabular defects. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 2007;89(3):296-300.
  58. Goodman S., Saastamoinen H., Shasha N., Gross A. Complications of ilioischial reconstruction rings in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2004;19:436-46.
  59. Sembrano J.N., Cheng E.Y. Acetabular cage survival and analysis of factors related to failure. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466:1657-65.



Abstract - 40

PDF (Russian) - 0


Article Metrics

Metrics Loading ...


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2019 Zagorodny N.V., Alexanyan O.A., Cragan G.A., Kagramanov S.V., Iwunze B.U.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies