Please confirm topic selection

Are you sure you want to trigger topic in your Anconeus AI algorithm?

Please confirm action

You are done for today with this topic.

Would you like to start learning session with this topic items scheduled for future?

Review Question - QID 5508

In scope icon L 3 A
QID 5508 (Type "5508" in App Search)
Utility of the implant seen in Figure A would be best considered in which of the following revision total hip arthroplasty scenarios?
  • A

Minimal acetabular deformity, intact rim

0%

21/4698

Superior acetabular bone lysis with intact superior rim

3%

162/4698

Localized acetabular destruction of medial wall

9%

414/4698

Absent superior acetabular rim, superolateral migration

17%

783/4698

Significant acetabular bone loss, pelvic discontinuity

70%

3284/4698

  • A

Select Answer to see Preferred Response

bookmode logo Review TC In New Tab

Paprosky Type 3B acetabular bone defects describes significant acetabular bone loss, with pelvic discontinuity. Type 3 defects often require reconstruction cages (as seen in Figure A) or acetabular distraction techniques to treat severe bone loss with an associated pelvic discontinuity.

Deficient acetabular bone stock poses a technical challenge in hip arthroplasty surgery. Paprosky classification for acetabular bone loss to helps guide treatment for revision total hip arthroplasty. The classification is as follows:

Type 1: Minimal deformity, intact rim
Type 2A: Superior bone lysis with intact superior rim
Type 2B: Absent superior rim, superolateral migration
Type 2C: Localized destruction of medial wall
Type 3A: Significant bone loss, superolateral cup migration
Type 3B: Significant bone loss, pelvic discontinuity

Sheth et al. reviewed acetabular bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty. They state that Paprosky Type 1 and 2 defects can usually be managed with porous-coated hemisphere cup secured with screws. Type 3 defects require reconstruction cages to protect with cups and structural augments or custom triflange implants.

Taunton et al. investigated clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of using a custom triflange acetabular component to treat pelvic discontinuity in revision THA. They found satisfactory clinical outcomes (81% had a stable triflange component with healed pelvic discontinuity) and cost equivalence with Trabecular Metal cup-cage constructs.

Figure A shows a lateral image of the pelvis with a reconstruction cage and cup construct. Illustration A shows an illustration of the Paprosky classification. Illustration B shows a table of the Saleh/Gross classification. Illustration C shows a table of the AAOS classification.

Incorrect Answers:
Answer 1: Minimal deformity, intact rim = Paprosky Type 1 defects. These can be treated with porous-coated hemisphere cup secured with screws.
Answer 2: Superior bone lysis with intact superior rim = Paprosky Type 2A defect. This can be treated with porous-coated hemisphere cup secured with screws.
Answer 3: Localized acetabular destruction of medial wall = Paprosky Type 2C defect. This can be treated with porous-coated hemisphere cup secured with screws +/- bone grafting.
Answer 4: Absent superior acetabular rim, superolateral migration = Paprosky Type 2B defect. This can be treated with porous-coated hemisphere cup secured with screws, jumbo cups +/- metal augments +/- bone grafting.

ILLUSTRATIONS:
REFERENCES (2)
Authors
Rating
Please Rate Question Quality

3.9

  • star icon star icon star icon
  • star icon star icon star icon
  • star icon star icon star icon
  • star icon star icon star icon
  • star icon star icon star icon

(9)

Attach Treatment Poll
Treatment poll is required to gain more useful feedback from members.
Please enter Question Text
Please enter at least 2 unique options
Please enter at least 2 unique options
Please enter at least 2 unique options