Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 7, 2025
The Use of Mixed Reality in Custom-Made Revision Hip Arthroplasty: A First Case Report
Published on: August 4, 2022
Uncemented hip revision cup as an alternative for T-type acetabular fractures: A cadaveric study
Adrian Cavalcanti Kußmaul1, Jan Bruder1, Axel Greiner1
1Department of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, Musculoskeletal University Center Munich (MUM), University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377 Munich, Germany.
Background:
The current rise in elderly patients with compromised bone quality complicates the surgical treatment of acetabular T-type fractures (AO type 62B2 fractures). There is on ongoing discussion about the treatment options, mostly consisting of an open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with or without primary or secondary total hip arthroplasty (THA). Yet, these patients are oftentimes unable to fulfil weight-bearing restrictions and mostly present with an unavailability of a stable anchor site. Consequently, this study investigates the feasibility of a cementless hip revision cup for acetabular T-type fractures and compares its biomechanical properties to ORIF.
Hypothesis:
The cementless hip revision cup provides sufficient biomechanical stability under the simulation of full weight-bearing.
Patients And Methods:
The study compared two groups of human cadaveric hip bones with T-type fractures, of whom 6 subjects were treated with ORIF (6 male; mean age: 62±17years; mean body weight: 75±15) versus 6 subjects treated with a cementless hip revision cup (2 male; 69±12 years; 73±15kg). The group-assignment was controlled for comparable BMD results (mean BMD: ORIF 110±37 mg Ca-Ha/mL versus hip revision cup 134±32 mg Ca-Ha/mL). To compare for biomechanical stability cyclic loading was applied measuring the force and dislocation of the fracture gap at standardized bone loci using an all-electric testing machine and a 3D-ultrasound measuring system.
Results:
Comparing superior pubic ramus versus iliac wing (cementless hip revision cup versus ORIF [mean±standard deviation]: 5.8±2.0 versus 7.0±3.2; p=0.032) as well as sacral ala versus iliac wing (4.6±2.2 versus 6.4±3.7; p=0.002), the cementless revision cup achieved a significantly higher stability than the plate osteosynthesis.
Conclusion:
Revision cup and ORIF withstood biomechanical loading forces exceeding full weight-bearing in this biomechanical study. The results of our study suggest that the cementless hip revision cup might be promising alternative to the current standard care of ORIF with or without primary THA.
Level Of Evidence:
III; case control experimental study.
