Revision of Total Hip Arthroplasty with Acetabular Bone Defects: Are Biological Grafts Really Better than Synthetic Bone Graft Substitutes?

Background: Acetabular aseptic loosening due to bone defect in total hip arthroplasty revisions is a great challengeand several solutions have been proposed, but a broadly accepted consensus in the literature has not been reachedyet. The aim of this study is to compare the clinical and radiographic results of acetabular bone defects treatment withbiological-only graft or with a mixture of bone graft substitute and biological graft.Methods: ۳۳ patients had revision hip arthroplasty using impaction grafting with biological-only graft (۲۱ patients,Group A) or a ۱/۳ mixture of allograft and tricalcium phosphate bone graft substitute (۱۲ patients, Group B). Patientswere reassessed at a minimum of one year after surgery with new x-rays and the Harris Hip Score (HHS).Results: Survivorship of bone graft was ۸۶% in Group A and ۱۰۰% in Group B at a mean follow-up of ۳۵ months. Nostatistical difference between the two groups was found in terms of implants survivorship (P=۰.۲۸), clinical (P=۰.۰۸) orradiographic (P=۰.۲۷) outcomes.Conclusion: In our experience the use of tricalcium phosphate bone graft substitutes in combination with allo andautograft provides good outcomes, low risk of failure and great clinical and radiographic results. Further investigationson larger samples are needed to impact clinical practice.Level of evidence: III

Keywords:

acetabular defect , Bone graft , bone substitute , Paprosky , Revision , Total hip arthroplasty