Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 29, 2026
The Transition to an Anterior-Based Muscle Sparing Approach Improves Early Postoperative Function but is Associated with a Learning Curve
Published on: September 7, 2022
Fate of cementless acetabular components retained during revision total hip arthroplasty
Paul E Beaulé1, Michel J Le Duff, Frederick J Dorey
1Joint Replacement Institute at Orthopaedic Hospital, 2400 South Flower Street, Los Angeles, CA 90007, USA. pbeaule@laoh.ucla.edu
Background:
Removal of a well-fixed cementless acetabular component can result in increased operative time and postoperative morbidity. The objectives of this retrospective study were to determine whether retention of a well-fixed acetabular component at the time of isolated femoral revision was compatible with long-term socket survival.
Methods:
The records of eighty-three consecutive patients (ninety hips) in whom a well-fixed cementless socket had been retained during revision of a femoral component were reviewed. The mean age of the patients was 48.7 years at the time of the primary arthroplasty and 54.1 years at the time of femoral revision. The radiographic analysis was based on anteroposterior radiographs and was performed by a single independent reviewer. The intraoperative criterion for stability of the socket was the absence of movement at the bone-implant interface during the application of direct pressure to the edges of the socket in four quadrants with use of a metallic pusher.
Results:
At the time of the isolated femoral revision, no socket demonstrated a radiolucent line measuring >1 mm in any two zones and forty of the ninety hips had periacetabular osteolysis. The mean size of the osteolytic lesions was 5.71 cm(2) (range, 0.4 to 24.2 cm(2)), and twenty-eight of the forty hips underwent bone-grafting. The mean duration of follow-up was 9.7 years after the isolated femoral revision and 14.9 years after the primary arthroplasty. Five acetabular sockets were revised at a mean of 6.8 years after the femoral revision. Only one of these sockets had failed because of aseptic loosening. With revision of the acetabular component for any reason as the end point, the survival rate was 98.7% at five years and 93.5% at ten years after the femoral revision and 100% at ten years and 93.9% at fifteen years after the primary arthroplasty. No hip showed recurrence or expansion of periacetabular osteolysis. The prevalence of dislocation was 16% (fourteen of ninety).
Conclusions:
Revision of a stable, cementless acetabular component solely on the basis of its duration in vivo or the presence of periacetabular osteolysis does not appear to be warranted. Retention of the socket with grafting of larger periacetabular osteolytic lesions appears to be consistent with satisfactory socket longevity.