The modern Burch-Schneider antiprotrusio cage for the treatment of acetabular defects: is it still an option? A systematic review. Academic Article uri icon

Overview

abstract

  • BACKGROUND: A number of papers have been published about the clinical performance of modern rough-blasted titanium Burch-Schneider antiprotrusio cages (BS-APCs) for the treatment of acetabular bone defects. However, no systematic review of the literature has been published to date. METHODS: The US National Library of Medicine (PubMed/MEDLINE), EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were queried for publications using keywords pertinent to Burch-Schneider antiprotrusio cage, revision THA, and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: 8 articles were found to be suitable for inclusion in the present study in which 374 cases (370 patients) had been treated with modern BS-APCs. Most acetabular bone defects were type 3 according to the Paprosky classification (type 2C: 18.1%, 3A: 51%, and 3B: 28.9%). The overall re-revision rate for the 374 acetabular reconstructions with modern BS-APCs was 11.5% (43 cases). The short-term survival rate of the modern BS-APC construct was 90.6% (339 out of 374 cases), while the mid-term survival rate was 85.6% (320 out of 374 cases), and the long-term survival rate 62% (54 out of 87 cases). The most common reasons for revision were aseptic loosening (5.6%), periprosthetic joint infection (3.8%), dislocation (2.7%), and acetabular periprosthetic fracture (1.9%). CONCLUSIONS: There was moderate quality evidence to show that the use of modern rough blasted titanium BS-APCs in cases of acetabular bone loss has an unacceptably high failure rate (38%). Given that antiprotrusio cages do not provide any biological fixation, we would not recommend the routine use of modern BS-APCs in complex revision THA cases. By contrast, the satisfactory short- to mid-term outcome of modern BS-APCs in combination with their low cost compared to highly porous acetabular implants, make us feel that BS-APCs might still be used in selected elderly or low-demand patients without severe superomedial acetabular bone loss.

publication date

  • June 5, 2022

Identity

Scopus Document Identifier

  • 85131568871

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

  • 10.1177/11207000221099817

PubMed ID

  • 35658595

Additional Document Info