Download PDF
Z Orthop Unfall 2017; 155(05): 534-538
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-108648
Aus den Sektionen – AE Deutsche Gesellschaft für Endoprothetik
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Jumbocups in der Revision

The Use of Jumbo Cups in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty
Philipp von Roth
Centrum für Muskuloskeletale Chirurgie, Klinik für Orthopädie, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin
,
Georgi I. Wassilew
Centrum für Muskuloskeletale Chirurgie, Klinik für Orthopädie, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
10 May 2017 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Extragroße zementfreie hemisphärische Pressfit-Pfannen werden als Jumbocups bezeichnet und wurden insbesondere in der letzten Dekade aufgrund ihrer einfachen Implantationstechnik häufig bei großen knöchernen Defekten eingesetzt. Durch ihre Größe füllen die Komponenten die azetabulären Defekte jedoch nur aus und tragen somit nicht zur Regeneration des knöchernen Lagers bei. Aufgrund dessen sind gerade bei diesem Implantattyp die Langzeitüberlebensraten von großem Interesse. Der vorliegende Beitrag diskutiert die zu diesem Thema vorliegende, relevante Literatur und geht auf die Operationstechnik und implantatspezifische Besonderheiten von Jumbocups ein. Jumbocups zeigen ein gutes Langzeitüberleben wobei dennoch die aseptische Lockerung die häufigste Revisionsursache und die Luxation die häufigste Komplikation darstellt. Durch die Entwicklung von alternativen meist modularen Revisionssystemen haben Jumbocups in der täglichen Praxis an Bedeutung verloren. Sie sind aber definitiv eine Benchmark für Neuentwicklungen im Bereich der Hüftendoprothetik.

Abstract

Extra-large uncemented jumbo cups are among the most common methods of acetabular revision. Jumbo cups do not contribute to bone stock restoration, and in the case of a subsequent revision, an even larger bone defect is to be expected. Thus, understanding long-term survival is essential. The present article discusses the literature relevant to this topic and addresses technical and implant-specific characteristics of jumbo cups. In summary, jumbo cups show an acceptable long-term survival rate, with aseptic loosening as the most common reason for revision and dislocation being the most common complication. Through the development of alternative revision systems, jumbo cups have lost their importance in todayʼs practice. However, they can serve as a benchmark for studies of newer technologies in revision total hip arthroplasty.

Schlüsselwörter

Jumbocup - extragroß - Pfannenrevision - zementfrei

Key words

jumbo cup - extra-large - uncemented - acetabular revision
 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E. et al. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007; 89: 780-785
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Paprosky WG, Perona PG, Lawrence JM. Acetabular defect classification and surgical reconstruction in revision arthroplasty. A 6-year follow-up evaluation. J Arthroplasty 1994; 9: 33-44
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Silverton CD, Rosenberg AG, Sheinkop MB. et al. Revision total hip arthroplasty using a cementless acetabular component. Technique and results. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1995; 319: 201-208
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Silverton CD, Rosenberg AG, Sheinkop MB. et al. Revision of the acetabular component without cement after total hip arthroplasty. A follow-up note regarding results at seven to eleven years. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1996; 78: 1366-1370
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Tanzer M, Drucker D, Jasty M. et al. Revision of the acetabular component with an uncemented Harris-Galante porous-coated prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1992; 74: 987-994
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Whaley AL, Berry DJ, Harmsen WS. Extra-large uncemented hemispherical acetabular components for revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2001; 83-A: 1352-1357
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Gustke KA, Levering MF, Miranda MA. Use of jumbo cups for revision of acetabulae with large bony defects. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29: 199-203
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Gustke KA. Jumbo cup or high hip center: is bigger better?. J Arthroplasty 2004; 19: 120-123
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 von Roth P, Abdel MP, Harmsen WS. et al. Uncemented jumbo cups for revision total hip arthroplasty: a concise follow-up, at a mean of twenty years, of a previous report. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2015; 97: 284-287
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Noordin S, Masri BA, Duncan CP. et al. Acetabular bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty: principles and techniques. Instr Course Lect 2010; 59: 27-36
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Issack PS, Nousiainen M, Beksac B. et al. Acetabular component revision in total hip arthroplasty. Part II: management of major bone loss and pelvic discontinuity. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 2009; 38: 550-556
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Sheth NP, Melnic CM, Rozell JC. et al. Management of severe femoral bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am 2015; 46: 329-342 ix
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Gross AE, Goodman SB. Rebuilding the skeleton: the intraoperative use of trabecular metal in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2005; 20: 91-93
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Patel JV, Masonis JL, Bourne RB. et al. The fate of cementless jumbo cups in revision hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2003; 18: 129-133
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Wedemeyer C, Neuerburg C, Heep H. et al. Jumbo cups for revision of acetabular defects after total hip arthroplasty: a retrospective review of a case series. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2008; 128: 545-550
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Holzapfel BM, Greimel F, Prodinger PM. et al. Total hip replacement in developmental dysplasia using an oval-shaped cementless press-fit cup. Int Orthop 2012; 36: 1355-1361
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Lachiewicz PF, Soileau ES. Fixation, survival, and dislocation of jumbo acetabular components in revision hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2013; 95: 543-548
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Brooks PJ. The jumbo cup: the 95% solution. Orthopedics 2008; 31: 913 915
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Nwankwo CD, Ries MD. Do jumbo cups cause hip center elevation in revision THA? A radiographic evaluation. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014; 472: 2793-2798
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Nwankwo C, Dong NN, Heffernan CD. et al. Do jumbo cups cause hip center elevation in revision THA? A computer simulation. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014; 472: 572-576
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Lakstein D, Backstein D, Safir O. et al. Trabecular Metal cups for acetabular defects with 50% or less host bone contact. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009; 467: 2318-2324
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Wasielewski RC, Cooperstein LA, Kruger MP. et al. Acetabular anatomy and the transacetabular fixation of screws in total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1990; 72: 501-508
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Faizan A, Black BJ, Fay BD. et al. Comparison of head center position and screw fixation options between a jumbo cup and an offset center of rotation cup in revision total hip arthroplasty: a computer simulation study. J Arthroplasty 2016; 31: 307-311
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Jasty M. Jumbo cups and morsalized graft. Orthop Clin North Am 1998; 29: 249-254
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Fan CY, Chen WM, Lee OK. et al. Acetabular revision arthroplasty using jumbo cups: an experience in Asia. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2008; 128: 809-813
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar