The current treatment of hip arthroplasty revision: a systematic review of the literature

The current treatment of hip arthroplasty revision: a systematic review of the literature


  • Stefano Giaretta Orthopedic and Traumatology Unit, Ospedale San Bortolo, Vicenza
  • Enrico Lunardelli
  • Paolo Di Benedetto
  • Alessandro Aprato
  • Pietro Spolettini
  • Francesco Mancuso
  • Alberto Momoli
  • Araldo Causero


hip arthroplasty revision, acetabular revision, trabecular metal


Introduction: Acetabular revision surgery is the most challenging aspect in hip prosthetic. There is lack of consensus on the optimal method of reconstructing the acetabular defects. The aim of this systematic review is to take stock of the state of the art on the options available and highlight which type of construct is the most reliable in usual clinical practice.

Material and methods: The reporting of this systematic review was guided by the standards of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis 2020 Statement.Electronic search of MEDLINE was performed from 1991 up to April 2021 to identify relevant studies for this review. 

Discussion: various surgical techniques have been adopted and proposed to treat acetabular bone defects: cemented cups, large-sized non-cemented acetabular cups, higher positioned cups, reinforcement rings, cage, oblong cups, custom triflange implants, high porous metal cups and augments. Bone defect defines the type of components to be implanted and among those, outcomes are various depending on the study taken into account, the component used and the degree of initial bone defect.

Conclusions: In acetabular revision surgerythe use of TM cups and augment is a valid option in presence of major bone loss and pelvic discontinuities. In clinical practice the use of TM components replaced rings, while the cup-cage implant replaced conventional cages. TM augments and cups can be considered as the most promising technique in the reconstruction of wide acetabular defects, while the use of cages can be considered as a valid option in the elderly population.


Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of Primary and Revision Hip and Knee Arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030: J Bone Jt Surg. 2007 Apr;89(4):780–5.

Choplin RH, Henley CN, Edds EM, Capello W, Rankin JL, Buckwalter KA. Total Hip Arthroplasty in Patients with Bone Deficiency of the Acetabulum. RadioGraphics. 2008 May;28(3):771–86.

Clohisy JC, Calvert G, Tull F, McDonald D, Maloney WJ. Reasons for Revision Hip Surgery: A Retrospective Review. Clin Orthop. 2004 Dec;429:188–92.

Paprosky WG, Burnett RSJ. Assessment and classification of bone stock deficiency in revision total hip arthroplasty. Am J Orthop Belle Mead NJ. 2002 Aug;31(8):459–64.

D’Antonio JA, Capello WN, Borden LS, Bargar WL, Bierbaum BF, Boettcher WG, et al. Classification and management of acetabular abnormalities in total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop. 1989 Jun;(243):126–37.

Saleh KJ, Holtzman J, Gafni A, Saleh L, Jaroszynski G, Wong P, et al. Development, test reliability and validation of a classification for revision hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Res. 2001 Jan;19(1):50–6.

Issack PS, Beksac B, Helfet DL, Buly RL, Sculco TP. Reconstruction of the failed acetabular component using cemented shells and impaction grafting in revision hip arthroplasty. Am J Orthop Belle Mead NJ. 2008 Oct;37(10):510–2.

van Egmond N, De Kam DCJ, Gardeniers JWM, Schreurs WB. Revisions of Extensive Acetabular Defects with Impaction Grafting and a Cement Cup. Clin Orthop. 2011 Feb;469(2):562–73.

Hendricks KJ. High Placement of Noncemented Acetabular Components in Revision Total Hip ArthroplastyA Concise Follow-Up, at a Minimum of Fifteen Years, of a Previous Report*. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 2006 Oct 1;88(10):2231.

Symeonides PP, Petsatodes GE, Pournaras JD, Kapetanos GA, Christodoulou AG, Marougiannis DJ. The Effectiveness of the Burch-Schneider antiprotrusio cage for acetabular bone deficiency: five to twenty-one years’ follow-up. J Arthroplasty. 2009 Feb;24(2):168–74.

Chen WM, Engh CA, Hopper RH, McAULEY JP, Engh CA. Acetabular Revision with Use of a Bilobed Component Inserted without Cement in Patients Who Have Acetabular Bone-Stock Deficiency*: J Bone Jt Surg-Am Vol. 2000 Feb;82(2):197–206.

Schreurs BW, Keurentjes JC, Gardeniers JWM, Verdonschot N, Slooff TJJH, Veth RPH. Acetabular revision with impacted morsellised cancellous bone grafting and a cemented acetabular component: A 20- TO 25-YEAR FOLLOW-UP. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009 Sep;91-B(9):1148–53.

DeBoer DK, Christie MJ, Brinson MF, Morrison JC. Revision total hip arthroplasty for pelvic discontinuity. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007 Apr;89(4):835–40.

Volpin A, Konan S, Biz C, Tansey RJ, Haddad FS. Reconstruction of failed acetabular component in the presence of severe acetabular bone loss: a systematic review. Musculoskelet Surg. 2019 Apr;103(1):1–13.


Kavanagh BF, Ilstrup DM, Fitzgerald RH. Revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1985 Apr;67(4):517–26.

Templeton JE, Callaghan JJ, Goetz DD, Sullivan PM, Johnston RC. Revision of a Cemented Acetabular Component to a Cementless Acetabular Component: A Ten to Fourteen-Year Follow-up Study. J Bone Jt Surg-Am Vol. 2001 Nov;83(11):1706–11.

Gustke KA, Levering MF, Miranda MA. Use of Jumbo Cups for Revision of Acetabulae With Large Bony Defects. J Arthroplasty. 2014 Jan;29(1):199–203.

García-Rey E, Fernández-Fernández R, Durán D, Madero R. Reconstruction of the rotation center of the hip after oblong cups in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Traumatol. 2013 Mar;14(1):39–49.

Gross AE, Goodman SB. Rebuilding the Skeleton. J Arthroplasty. 2005 Jun;20:91–3.

Bobyn JD, Poggie RA, Krygier JJ, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD, Lewis RJ, et al. Clinical Validation of a Structural Porous Tantalum Biomaterial for Adult Reconstruction: J Bone Jt Surg. 2004 Dec;86:123–9.

Meneghini RM, Meyer C, Buckley CA, Hanssen AD, Lewallen DG. Mechanical Stability of Novel Highly Porous Metal Acetabular Components in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2010 Apr;25(3):337–41.

Burns AWR, McCalden RW. (ii) Current techniques and new developments in acetabular revision surgery. Curr Orthop. 2006 Jun;20(3):162–70.

Meneghini RM, Hull JR, Russo GS, Lieberman JR, Jiranek WA. Porous Tantalum Buttress Augments for Severe Acetabular Posterior Column Deficiency. Surg Technol Int. 2015 Nov;27:240–4.

Abolghasemian M, Tangsataporn S, Sternheim A, Backstein D, Safir O, Gross AE. Combined trabecular metal acetabular shell and augment for acetabular revision with substantial bone loss: A mid-term review. Bone Jt J. 2013 Feb;95-B(2):166–72.

Matharu GS, Judge A, Pandit HG, Murray DW. Which factors influence the rate of failure following metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty revision surgery performed for adverse reactions to metal debris?: an analysis from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Bone Jt J. 2017 Aug;99-B(8):1020–7.

Siegmeth A, Duncan CP, Masri BA, Kim WY, Garbuz DS. Modular Tantalum Augments for Acetabular Defects in Revision Hip Arthroplasty. Clin Orthop. 2009 Jan;467(1):199–205.

Van Kleunen JP, Lee GC, Lementowski PW, Nelson CL, Garino JP. Acetabular Revisions Using Trabecular Metal Cups and Augments. J Arthroplasty. 2009 Sep;24(6):64–8.

Beckmann NA, Bitsch RG, Gondan M, Schonhoff M, Jaeger S. Comparison of the stability of three fixation techniques between porous metal acetabular components and augments. Bone Jt Res. 2018 Apr;7(4):282–8.

Nehme A, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD. Modular Porous Metal Augments for Treatment of Severe Acetabular Bone Loss during Revision Hip Arthroplasty: Clin Orthop. 2004 Dec;429:201–8.

Sporer SM, Paprosky WG. The Use of a Trabecular Metal Acetabular Component and Trabecular Metal Augment for Severe Acetabular Defects. J Arthroplasty. 2006 Sep;21(6):83–6.

Fernández-Fairen M, Murcia A, Blanco A, Meroño A, Murcia A, Ballester J. Revision of Failed Total Hip Arthroplasty Acetabular Cups to Porous Tantalum Components. J Arthroplasty. 2010 Sep;25(6):865–72.

Weeden SH, Schmidt RH. The Use of Tantalum Porous Metal Implants for Paprosky 3A and 3B Defects. J Arthroplasty. 2007 Sep;22(6):151–5.

Del Gaizo DJ, Kancherla V, Sporer SM, Paprosky WG. Tantalum Augments for Paprosky IIIA Defects Remain Stable at Midterm Followup. Clin Orthop. 2012 Feb;470(2):395–401.

Whitehouse MR, Masri BA, Duncan CP, Garbuz DS. Continued Good Results With Modular Trabecular Metal Augments for Acetabular Defects in Hip Arthroplasty at 7 to 11 Years. Clin Orthop. 2015 Feb;473(2):521–7.

Sembrano JN, Cheng EY. Acetabular Cage Survival and Analysis of Factors Related to Failure. Clin Orthop. 2008 Jul;466(7):1657–65.

Wachtl SW, Jung M, Jakob RP, Gautier E. The Burch-Schneider antiprotrusio cage in acetabular revision surgery: a mean follow-up of 12 years. J Arthroplasty. 2000 Dec;15(8):959–63.

Aprato A., Olivero M., Branca Vergano L., Massè A. Outcome of cage in revision arthroplasty of the acetabulum: a systematic review. Acta Biomed 2019; Vol. 90, Supplement 1: 24-31

Paprosky W, Sporer S, O’Rourke MR. The Treatment of Pelvic Discontinuity with Acetabular Cages. Clin Orthop. 2006 Dec;453:183–7.

Peters CL, Miller M, Erickson J, Hall P, Samuelson K. Acetabular revision with a modular anti-protrusio acetabular component. J Arthroplasty. 2004 Oct;19(7):67–72.

Goodman S, Saastamoinen H, Shasha N, Gross A. Complications of ilioischial reconstruction rings in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2004 Jun;19(4):436–46.

Ahmad AQ, Schwarzkopf R. Clinical evaluation and surgical options in acetabular reconstruction: A literature review. J Orthop. 2015 Dec;12:S238–43.

Kosashvili Y, Backstein D, Safir O, Lakstein D, Gross AE. Acetabular revision using an anti-protrusion (ilio-ischial) cage and trabecular metal acetabular component for severe acetabular bone loss associated with pelvic discontinuity. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009 Jul;91-B(7):870–6.

Wang C, Huang Z, Wu B, Li W, Fang X, Zhang W. Cup‐Cage Solution for Massive Acetabular Defects: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis. Orthop Surg. 2020 Jun;12(3):701–7.

Shah RP, Christy JM, Sporer SM, Paprosky WG. Pelvic discontinuity: Where are we today? Semin Arthroplasty. 2014 Jun;25(2):156–8.

Sporer SM, Bottros JJ, Hulst JB, Kancherla VK, Moric M, Paprosky WG. Acetabular Distraction: An Alternative for Severe Defects with Chronic Pelvic Discontinuity? Clin Orthop. 2012 Nov;470(11):3156–63.

Wind MA, Swank ML, Sorger JI. Short-term Results of a Custom Triflange Acetabular Component for Massive Acetabular Bone Loss in Revision THA. Orthopedics [Internet]. 2013 Mar [cited 2022 Oct 9];36(3). Available from:

Berry DJ. Identification and Management of Pelvic Discontinuity. Orthopedics. 2001 Sep;24(9):881–2.

Leung S, Naudie D, Kitamura N, Walde T, Engh CA. Computed Tomography in the Assessment of Periacetabular Osteolysis: J Bone Jt Surg. 2005 Mar;87(3):592–7.

Philippe R, Gosselin O, Sedaghatian J, Dezaly C, Roche O, Sirveaux F, et al. Acetabular reconstruction using morselized allograft and a reinforcement ring for revision arthroplasty with Paprosky type II and III bone loss: Survival analysis of 95 hips after 5 to 13 years. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2012 Apr;98(2):129–37.

Flecher X, Paprosky W, Grillo JC, Aubaniac JM, Argenson JN. Do tantalum components provide adequate primary fixation in all acetabular revisions? Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2010 May;96(3):235–41.

Garbuz D, Morsi E, Gross AE. Revision of the acetabular component of a total hip arthroplasty with a massive structural allograft. Study with a minimum five-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1996 May;78(5):693–7.

Udomkiat P, Dorr LD, Won YY, Longjohn D, Wan Z. Technical factors for success with metal ring acetabular reconstruction. J Arthroplasty. 2001 Dec;16(8):961–9.

Gross AE, Goodman S. The current role of structural grafts and cages in revision arthroplasty of the hip. Clin Orthop. 2004 Dec;(429):193–200.

Whaley AL, Berry DJ, Harmsen WS. Extra-Large Uncemented Hemispherical Acetabular Components for Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: J Bone Jt Surg-Am Vol. 2001 Sep;83(9):1352–7.

Berry DJ, Sutherland CJ, Trousdale RT, Colwell CW, Chandler HP, Ayres D, et al. Bilobed Oblong Porous Coated Acetabular Components in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: Clin Orthop. 2000 Feb;371:154–60.

Issack PS, Nousiainen M, Beksac B, Helfet DL, Sculco TP, Buly RL. Acetabular component revision in total hip arthroplasty. Part I: cementless shells. Am J Orthop Belle Mead NJ. 2009 Oct;38(10):509–14.

Dearborn JT, Harris WH. High placement of an acetabular component inserted without cement in a revision total hip arthroplasty. Results after a mean of ten years. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999 Apr;81(4):469–80.

Holt GE, Dennis DA. Use of custom triflanged acetabular components in revision total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop. 2004 Dec;(429):209–14.

Beckmann NA, Weiss S, Klotz MCM, Gondan M, Jaeger S, Bitsch RG. Loosening after acetabular revision: comparison of trabecular metal and reinforcement rings. A systematic review. J Arthroplasty. 2014 Jan;29(1):229–35.

Paprosky WG, Martin EL. Structural acetabular allograft in revision total hip arthroplasty. Am J Orthop Belle Mead NJ. 2002 Aug;31(8):481–4.

Woodgate IG, Saleh KJ, Jaroszynski G, Agnidis Z, Woodgate MM, Gross AE. Minor column structural acetabular allografts in revision hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop. 2000 Feb;(371):75–85.

Jafari SM, Bender B, Coyle C, Parvizi J, Sharkey PF, Hozack WJ. Do tantalum and titanium cups show similar results in revision hip arthroplasty? Clin Orthop. 2010 Feb;468(2):459–65.

Sternheim A, Kuzyk PRT, Goshua G, Berkovich Y, Safir O, Gross AE. Porous metal revision shells for management of contained acetabular bone defects at a mean follow-up of six years: a comparison between up to 50% bleeding host bone contact and more than 50% contact. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012 Feb;94(2):158–62.

Ramappa M, Bajwa A, Kulkarni A, McMurtry I, Port A. Early results of a new highly porous modular acetabular cup in revision arthroplasty. Hip Int J Clin Exp Res Hip Pathol Ther. 2009 Sep;19(3):239–44.

Schutzer SF, Harris WH. High placement of porous-coated acetabular components in complex total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 1994 Aug;9(4):359–67.

Baauw M, van Hooff ML, Spruit M. Current Construct Options for Revision of Large Acetabular Defects: A Systematic Review. JBJS Rev [Internet]. 2016 Nov 8 [cited 2022 Oct 11];4(11). Available from:




How to Cite

The current treatment of hip arthroplasty revision: a systematic review of the literature. Acta Biomed [Internet]. 2023 Jun. 23 [cited 2024 Jun. 20];94(S2):e2023092. Available from:

Most read articles by the same author(s)

1 2 3 4 5 6 > >>