Treatment of High-Grade Acetabular Defects: Do Porous Titanium Cups Provide Better Stability Than Traditional Titanium Cups When Combined With an Augment?

BACKGROUND: Revision total hip arthroplasty frequently faces challenges associated with deficient bone stock. Porous metal implants were developed to meet the challenge, but require rapid osseointegration for ultimate success. This study aims to assess relative motion as an indicator for primary stability and osseointegration of two different titanium cups each combined with a titanium augment. METHODS: In 14 cadaver hemipelvises, 2 types of titanium acetabular cups, a traditional sintered-bead cup (POROCOAT Acetabular Cup [PAC]) and a newer porous-coated cup (GRIPTION Acetabular Cup [GAC]) each associated with a porous augment, were subjected to 3-dimensional varying loads, replicating 30% of loads experienced during normal gait. Relative motion was measured at the cup/bone, augment/bone, and cup/augment interfaces. RESULTS: Only at the cup/bone interface was there a statistically significant difference in relative motion between the traditional PAC and the newer GAC, with PAC showing less relative motion (P = .0037). Bone mineral density (BMD) had a significant effect on relative motion (P = .0019) at the cup/bone interface of both cup types, with low BMD specimens showing more relative motion. CONCLUSION: Both cup types combined with augments displayed minimal relative motion that was within the accepted range thought to allow osseointegration, although the traditional surface proved superior to the newer surface. This difference was more pronounced at low BMD, with the well-established PAC cup displaying less relative motion than the more porous GAC cup, consistent with better osseointegration than the more porous cup. This suggests that the more porous implant may be less advantageous than traditional PAC cups, particularly in cases with poorer bone stock.

Comparison of the Primary Stability of a Porous Coated Acetabular Revision Cup With a Standard Cup.

BACKGROUND: The number of revision hip arthroplasty procedures has been increasing substantially, with the acetabular component requiring component revision in over half of the cases. New porous implant designs attempt to improve outcomes due to improved osseointegration; however, sufficient primary stability is paramount for good osseointegration. METHODS: We compared 2 revision cups of the same geometry, yet different surface properties in an in vitro scenario: a porous titanium surface and a conventional sintered-bead titanium surface. These were tested in 10 cadaveric pelvises under a physiologic cyclic partial weight-bearing scenario. Each side was randomly implanted with one of the implants. Relative motion between the bone and cup was measured using an optical measuring device. Statistical evaluation was carried out descriptively using a covariance analysis with repeated measures and a test of fixed effects, with significance determined as P < .05. RESULTS: The conventional cup displayed an average relative motion of 28.02 µm; and the porous implant displayed an average relative motion of 33.42 µm. There was no statistically significant difference between the two with regard to the resultant relative motion (P = .2649). The bone mineral density does have a significant influence on resultant relative motion (P = .0406), with higher bone mineral density correlating with less relative motion in both implants. CONCLUSION: The porous implant provides similar primary stability to the conventional implant in the tested scenario; the motion of both implants relative to the bone was within safe limits for osseointegration. Bone stock must be considered when choosing implant type and postoperative care.