Search

Background: A number of papers have been published about the clinical performance of modern rough-blasted titanium Burch-Schneider antiprotrusio cages (BS-APCs) for the treatment of acetabular bone defects. However, no systematic review of the literature has been published to date., Methods: The US National Library of Medicine (PubMed/MEDLINE), EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were queried for publications using keywords pertinent to Burch-Schneider antiprotrusio cage, revision THA, and clinical outcomes., Results: 8 articles were found to be suitable for inclusion in the present study in which 374 cases (370 patients) had been treated with modern BS-APCs. Most acetabular bone defects were type 3 according to the Paprosky classification (type 2C: 18.1%, 3A: 51%, and 3B: 28.9%). The overall re-revision rate for the 374 acetabular reconstructions with modern BS-APCs was 11.5% (43 cases). The short-term survival rate of the modern BS-APC construct was 90.6% (339 out of 374 cases), while the mid-term survival rate was 85.6% (320 out of 374 cases), and the long-term survival rate 62% (54 out of 87 cases). The most common reasons for revision were aseptic loosening (5.6%), periprosthetic joint infection (3.8%), dislocation (2.7%), and acetabular periprosthetic fracture (1.9%)., Conclusions: There was moderate quality evidence to show that the use of modern rough blasted titanium BS-APCs in cases of acetabular bone loss has an unacceptably high failure rate (38%). Given that antiprotrusio cages do not provide any biological fixation, we would not recommend the routine use of modern BS-APCs in complex revision THA cases. By contrast, the satisfactory short- to mid-term outcome of modern BS-APCs in combination with their low cost compared to highly porous acetabular implants, make us feel that BS-APCs might still be used in selected elderly or low-demand patients without severe superomedial acetabular bone loss.

Background: There is a concern for higher rates of wound complications and a potentially increased periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) risk after total hip arthroplasty (THA) with the direct anterior approach (DAA) compared to the posterolateral approach (PLA). Our purpose was to compare PJI risk after THA with the DAA or the PLA and to identify risk factors for PJI after primary THA., Methods: Clinical characteristics of patients treated in our institution with primary DAA or PLA THA between 1/2010 and 12/2015 were retrospectively reviewed. The respective deep PJI rates were calculated. A logistic regression model was constructed to determine a potential difference in the PJI risk between the 2 groups, and risk factors for hip PJI in all patients., Results: During the period studied, there were 1,182 DAA THAs and 18,853 PLA THAs. The PJI rate was 0.25% for the DAA group and 0.31% for the PLA group ( p = 1.0). The DAA was not associated with a significantly increased risk for PJI compared to the PLA. Compared to younger patients, older patients had lower PJI risk; patient discharge to home was also associated with lower PJI risk compared to other discharge disposition; longer length of stay was associated with higher PJI risk compared to shorter length of stay., Conclusion: The DAA is equally safe compared the PLA with respect to PJI risk. Younger age, discharge to facilities other than home and increased length of stay increase the risk for deep PJI after primary THA.