Table 3.
Results of different series of revision acetabular reconstruction in the literature
| Study | Year | Specific selection | Implants used for reconstruction | Number of patients | Mean followup (years)* | Mechanical failure rate | Mean Merle d’Aubigné-Postel score improvement† |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Berry and Müller [1] | 1992 | Combined contained and segmental defects | Antiprotrusio cages | 42 | 5 (2–11) | 12% | 2.2 |
| Goodman et al. [9] | 2004 | Contained with > 50% loss of acetabulum and segmental defects | Reconstruction rings | 61 | 5 (2–18) | 24% | NA |
| Sembrano and Cheng [20] | 2008 | Contained and segmental defects | Cages | 72 | 5 (1–11) | 19% | NA |
| Flecher et al. [6] | 2008 | Segmental defects | TM cups + augments | 23 | 3 (2–4) | 0% | 3.8 |
| Kim et al. [13] | 2008 | Contained and segmental defects | TM cups | 46 | 3 (2–4) | 2% | NA |
| Siegmeth et al. [21] | 2009 | Contained and segmental defects | TM cups + augments | 34 | 3 (2–5) | 6% | NA |
| Unger et al. [22] | 2005 | Contained and segmental defects | TM cups | 60 | 3.5 (1–6) | 2% | NA |
| Garcia-Cimbrelo [7] | 1999 | Contained and segmental defects | Cementless hemispheric cups | 65 | 8 (6–11) | 11% | 5.9 |
| Lakstein et al. (Currrent study) | 2009 | Contained defects with ≤ 50% host bone contact | TM cups | 53 | 4 (2–6) | 4% | 5.1 |
* Range in parentheses; †combined pain and function Merle d’Aubigné-Postel score; TM = Trabecular Metal™; NA = not available.