Does Revision of an Acetabular Shell With Insertion of an Uncemented Constrained Liner Confer Benefit Over Cementing Into a Well-Ingrown Shell?

• Published in: The Journal of arthroplasty 2022-08, Vol.37 (8), p.1631-1635
• Main Authors: Warschawski, Yaniv, Morgan, Samuel, Garceau, Simon P., Kuzyk, Paul R., Safir, Oleg A., Gross, Allan E.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: complications; constrained acetabular liner; failure; hip dislocation; revision total hip arthroplasty
• ISSN: 0883-5403; 1532-8406
• DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2022.03.065

During revision total hip arthroplasty (THA), a constrained acetabular liner (CAL) may be inserted to enhance hip stability. It is unclear, however, whether cementation of a CAL into a retained cup offers an advantage compared to revision of the acetabular cup and insertion of an uncemented CAL. The purpose of our study was to compare outcomes and survivorship between the 2 methods. We identified a total of 177 patients who underwent revision THA with a specific CAL at our center between July 2004 and May 2019 (114 cup revisions and insertion of an uncemented CAL, 63 cementations of a CAL into a retained cup). Kaplan-Meier (KM) survival analysis was performed for implant survival free from aseptic failure of the CAL for both cohorts. The average follow-up time was 7.2 and 7.02 years for the cemented and uncemented cohort, respectively (P = .55). Five patients (7.93%) in the cemented CAL group experienced failure of the CAL, whereas 10 patients (8.77%) in the uncemented CAL cohort experienced failure (P = .21). Kaplan-Meier (KM) survival analysis demonstrated comparable survivorship at 10 years (P = .055). The results of our study suggest comparable survivorship between cementing a CAL into a retained cup and inserting an uncemented CAL in a revised acetabular cup. As a result of these findings along with the benefits associated with cementing a CAL, we encourage surgeons to readily consider this option in the management of recurrent instability.