International Orthopaedics

, Volume 43, Issue 3, pp 561–571 | Cite as

Acetabular reinforcement rings associated with allograft for severe acetabular defects

  • Emmanuel Gibon
  • Luc Kerboull
  • Jean-Pierre Courpied
  • Moussa HamadoucheEmail author
Review Article


Acetabular revisions with severe bone defects can be challenging procedures. Several grading systems have been set into place to help the surgeon adequately gauge the degree of bone loss within the acetabulum. Internationally innovative research in orthopedics and bio-engineering has helped with progression of successful techniques and rings to re-establish the normal anatomy of the hip. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the outcomes of the different acetabular reinforcement rings in the setting of severe acetabular defects. A successive report of relevant data from the literature of multiple techniques will be provided. The procedures include the cup-cage, the Müller ring, the Ganz Ring, the Kerboull acetabular reinforcement device (KARD), the graft augmentation prosthesis (GAP) ring, and the Burch-Schneider ring. The main focus of this overview is rings only; other devices such as trabecular augments, custom-made cages, or oblong cups are not discussed. Furthermore, a special emphasis on the surgical technique of the KARD is also given. Procedures using these rings are usually associated with bone grafts either bulk or morselized. When considering the available data on these various rings used for reconstruction of the severely damaged acetabulum, the cup-cage, the KARD, and the Burch-Schneider ring appear to be reliable options for more successful long-term outcomes.


Cup-cage Müller ring Ganz ring Kerboull acetabular reinforcement ring GAP ring Burch-Schneider ring 



We thank Barbara Batke (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign) who helped in editing this article.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Kurtz SM, Ong KL, Schmier J, Zhao K, Mowat F, Lau E (2009) Primary and revision arthroplasty surgery caseloads in the United States from 1990 to 2004. J Arthroplast 24(2):195–203. Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kurtz S, Mowat F, Ong K, Chan N, Lau E, Halpern M (2005) Prevalence of primary and revision total hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 1990 through 2002. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87(7):1487–1497. Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kurtz SM, Ong KL, Lau E, Bozic KJ (2014) Impact of the economic downturn on total joint replacement demand in the United States: updated projections to 2021. J Bone Joint Surg Am 96(8):624–630. Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M (2007) Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89(4):780–785. Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Inacio MCS, Graves SE, Pratt NL, Roughead EE, Nemes S (2017) Increase in total joint arthroplasty projected from 2014 to 2046 in Australia: a conservative local model with international implications. Clin Orthop Relat Res 475(8):2130–2137. Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Patel A, Pavlou G, Mújica-Mota RE, Toms AD (2015) The epidemiology of revision total knee and hip arthroplasty in England and Wales: a comparative analysis with projections for the United States. A study using the National Joint Registry dataset. Bone Joint J 97-B(8):1076–1081. Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bozic KJ, Kurtz SM, Lau E, Ong K, Vail TP, Berry DJ (2009) The epidemiology of revision total hip arthroplasty in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91(1):128–133. Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hanna SA, Somerville L, McCalden RW, Naudie DD, MacDonald SJ (2016) Highly cross-linked polyethylene decreases the rate of revision of total hip arthroplasty compared with conventional polyethylene at 13 years’ follow-up. Bone Joint J 98-B(1):28–32. Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shen C, Tang ZH, Hu JZ, Zou GY, Xiao RC, Yan DX (2014) Does cross-linked polyethylene decrease the revision rate of total hip arthroplasty compared with conventional polyethylene? A meta-analysis. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 100(7):745–750. Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bitsch RG, Loidolt T, Heisel C, Ball S, Schmalzried TP (2008) Reduction of osteolysis with use of Marathon cross-linked polyethylene. A concise follow-up, at a minimum of five years, of a previous report. J Bone Joint Surg Am 90(7):1487–1491. Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Epinette J-A, Jolles-Haeberli BM (2016) Comparative results from a National Joint Registry hip data set of a new cross-linked annealed polyethylene vs both conventional polyethylene and ceramic bearings. J Arthroplast 31(7):1483–1491. Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Scemama C, Anract P, Dumaine V, Babinet A, Courpied JP, Hamadouche M (2016) Does vitamin E-blended polyethylene reduce wear in primary total hip arthroplasty: a blinded randomised clinical trial. Int Orthop.
  13. 13.
    Scemama C, Dora C, Langlois J, Hamadouche M (2015) Minimum five-year wear rate of metal-on-highly cross-linked polyethylene in primary total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop 39(6):1051–1055. Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mu Z, Tian J, Wu T, Yang J, Pei F (2009) A systematic review of radiological outcomes of highly cross-linked polyethylene versus conventional polyethylene in total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop 33(3):599–604. Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Oral E, Muratoglu OK (2011) Vitamin E diffused, highly crosslinked UHMWPE: a review. Int Orthop 35(2):215–223. Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Delaunay C, Hamadouche M, Girard J, Duhamel A, So FG (2013) What are the causes for failures of primary hip arthroplasties in France? Clin Orthop Relat Res 471(12):3863–3869. Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dammerer D, Putzer D, Glodny B, Petersen J, Arrich F, Krismer M, Biedermann R (2018) Occult intra-operative periprosthetic fractures of the acetabulum may affect implant survival. Int Orthop.
  18. 18.
    Engh CA, Glassman AH, Griffin WL, Mayer JG (1988) Results of cementless revision for failed cemented total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 235:91–110Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gustilo RB, Pasternak HS (1988) Revision total hip arthroplasty with titanium ingrowth prosthesis and bone grafting for failed cemented femoral component loosening. Clin Orthop Relat Res 235:111–119Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    D'Antonio JA, Capello WN, Borden LS, Bargar WL, Bierbaum BF, Boettcher WG, Steinberg ME, Stulberg SD, Wedge JH (1989) Classification and management of acetabular abnormalities in total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 243:126–137Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gross AE, Allan DG, Catre M, Garbuz DS, Stockley I (1993) Bone grafts in hip replacement surgery. The pelvic side. Orthop Clin North Am 24(4):679–695Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Saleh KJ, Holtzman J, Gafni Asaleh L, Jaroszynski G, Wong P, Woodgate I, Davis A, Gross AE (2001) Development, test reliability and validation of a classification for revision hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Res 19(1):50–56. Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Paprosky WG, Perona PG, Lawrence JM (1994) Acetabular defect classification and surgical reconstruction in revision arthroplasty. A 6-year follow-up evaluation. J Arthroplast 9(1):33–44Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Della Valle CJ, Berger RA, Rosenberg AG, Galante JO (2004) Cementless acetabular reconstruction in revision total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 420:96–100Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hallstrom BR, Golladay GJ, Vittetoe DA, Harris WH (2004) Cementless acetabular revision with the Harris-Galante porous prosthesis. Results after a minimum of ten years of follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86-A(5):1007–1011Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Park DK, Della Valle CJ, Quigley L, Moric M, Rosenberg AG, Galante JO (2009) Revision of the acetabular component without cement. A concise follow-up, at twenty to twenty-four years, of a previous report. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91(2):350–355. Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Templeton JE, Callaghan JJ, Goetz DD, Sullivan PM, Johnston RC (2001) Revision of a cemented acetabular component to a cementless acetabular component. A ten to fourteen-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 83-A(11):1706–1711Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Trumm BN, Callaghan JJ, Liu SS, Goetz DD, Johnston RC (2012) Revision with cementless acetabular components: a concise follow-up, at a minimum of twenty years, of previous reports. J Bone Joint Surg Am 94(21):2001–2004. Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Boscainos PJ, Kellett CF, Maury AC, Backstein D, Gross AE (2007) Management of periacetabular bone loss in revision hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 465:159–165. Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Garcia-Cimbrelo E (1999) Porous-coated cementless acetabular cups in revision surgery: a 6- to 11-year follow-up study. J Arthroplast 14(4):397–406Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Goodman S, Saastamoinen H, Shasha N, Gross A (2004) Complications of ilioischial reconstruction rings in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 19(4):436–446Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Jasty M, Harris WH (1990) Salvage total hip reconstruction in patients with major acetabular bone deficiency using structural femoral head allografts. J Bone Joint Surg Br 72(1):63–67Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hooten JP, Engh CA, Engh CA (1994) Failure of structural acetabular allografts in cementless revision hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 76(3):419–422Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kwong LM, Jasty M, Harris WH (1993) High failure rate of bulk femoral head allografts in total hip acetabular reconstructions at 10 years. J Arthroplast 8(4):341–346Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pollock FH, Whiteside LA (1992) The fate of massive allografts in total hip acetabular revision surgery. J Arthroplast 7(3):271–276Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Garbuz D, Morsi E, Gross AE (1996) 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 78(5):693–697Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hanssen AD, Lewallen DG (2005) Modular acetabular augments: composite void fillers. Orthopedics 28(9):971–972Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kosashvili Y, Backstein D, Safir O, Lakstein D, Gross AE (2009) 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 91(7):870–876. Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Abolghasemian M, Tangsaraporn S, Drexler M, Barbuto R, Backstein D, Safir O, Kuzyk P, Gross A (2014) The challenge of pelvic discontinuity: cup-cage reconstruction does better than conventional cages in mid-term. Bone Joint J 96-B(2):195–200. Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Amenabar T, Rahman WA, Hetaimish BM, Kuzyk PR, Safir OA, Gross AE (2016) Promising mid-term results with a cup-cage construct for large acetabular defects and pelvic discontinuity. Clin Orthop Relat Res 474(2):408–414. Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sculco PK, Ledford CK, Hanssen AD, Abdel MP, Lewallen DG (2017) The evolution of the cup-cage technique for major acetabular defects: full and half cup-cage reconstruction. J Bone Joint Surg Am 99(13):1104–1110. Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Haentjens P, Handelberg F, Casteleyn PP, Opdecam P (1986) The Müller acetabular support ring. A preliminary review of indications and clinical results. Int Orthop 10(4):223–230Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Schatzker J, Glynn MK, Ritter D (1984) A preliminary review of the Müller acetabular and Burch-Schneider antiprotrusio support rings. Archives of orthopaedic and traumatic surgery. Archiv Fur Orthopadische Und Unfall-Chirurgie 103(1):5–12Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Korovessis P, Stamatakis M, Baikousis A, Katonis P, Petsinis G (1999) Mueller roof reinforcement rings. Medium-term results. Clin Orthop Relat Res 362:125–137Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    van der Linde M, Tonino A (2001) Acetabular revision with impacted grafting and a reinforcement ring: 42 patients followed for a mean of 10 years. Acta Orthop Scand 72(3):221–227. Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Schlegel UJ, Bitsch RG, Pritsch M, Clauss M, Mau H, Breusch SJ (2006) Mueller reinforcement rings in acetabular revision: outcome in 164 hips followed for 2-17 years. Acta Orthop 77(2):234–241. Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Massin P, Tanaka C, Huten D, Duparc J (1998) Treatment of aseptic acetabular loosening by reconstruction combining bone graft and Müller ring. Actuarial analysis over 11 years. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 84(1):51–60Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Gill TJ, Siebenrock K, Oberholzer R, Ganz R (1999) Acetabular reconstruction in developmental dysplasia of the hip: results of the acetabular reinforcement ring with hook. J Arthroplast 14(2):131–137Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Siebenrock KA, Trochsler M, Sadri H, Ganz R (2001) Hooked roof cup in revision of difficult loose hip prosthesis cups. Results after a minimum of 10 years. Orthopade 30(5):273–279Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Gerber A, Pisan M, Zurakowski D, Isler B (2003) Ganz reinforcement ring for reconstruction of acetabular defects in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85-A(12):2358–2364Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Hourscht C, Abdelnasser MK, Ahmad SS, Kraler L, Keel MJ, Siebenrock KA, Klenke FM (2017) Reconstruction of AAOS type III and IV acetabular defects with the Ganz reinforcement ring: high failure in pelvic discontinuity. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 137(8):1139–1148. Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Duffy GP, O'Connor MI, Brodersen MP (2007) Fatigue failure of the GAP ring. J Arthroplast 22(5):711–714. Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Buttaro MA, de la Rosa DM, Comba F, Piccaluga F (2012) High failure rate with the GAP II ring and impacted allograft bone in severe acetabular defects. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470(11):3148–3155. Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Schneider R (1980) Reinforcement of the cup in total hip prosthesis (author’s transl). Unfallheilkunde 83(10):482–488Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Hsu C-C, Hsu C-H, Yen S-H, Wang J-W (2015) Use of the Burch-Schneider cage and structural allografts in complex acetabular deficiency: 3- to 10-year follow up. Kaohsiung J Med Sci 31(10):540–547. Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Regis D, Sandri A, Bonetti I (2014) Acetabular reconstruction with the Burch-Schneider antiprotrusio cage and bulk allografts: minimum 10-year follow-up results. Biomed Res Int 2014:194076. Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Jones L, Grammatopoulos G, Singer G (2012) The Burch-Schneider cage: 9-year survival in Paprosky type 3 acetabular defects. Clinical and radiological follow-up. Hip Int 22(1):28–34. Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Ilyas I, Alrumaih HA, Kashif S, Rabbani SA, Faqihi AH (2015) Revision of type III and type IVB acetabular defects with Burch-Schneider anti-Protrusio cages. J Arthroplast 30(2):259–264. Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    van Koeveringe AJ, Ochsner PE (2002) Revision cup arthroplasty using Burch-Schneider anti-protrusio cage. Int Orthop 26(5):291–295. Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Wachtl SW, Jung M, Jakob RP, Gautier E (2000) The Burch-Schneider antiprotrusio cage in acetabular revision surgery: a mean follow-up of 12 years. J Arthroplast 15(8):959–963Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Winter E, Piert M, Volkmann R, Maurer F, Eingartner C, Weise K, Weller S (2001) Allogeneic cancellous bone graft and a Burch-Schneider ring for acetabular reconstruction in revision hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 83-A(6):862–867Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Tanaka C, Shikata J, Ikenaga M, Takahashi M (2003) Acetabular reconstruction using a Kerboull-type acetabular reinforcement device and hydroxyapatite granules: a 3- to 8-year follow-up study. J Arthroplast 18(6):719–725Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Baba T, Shitoto K (2010) Revision of total hip arthroplasty using the Kerboull and KT plates. Int Orthop 34(3):341–347. Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Gibon E, Barut N, Courpied JP, Hamadouche M (2018) Revision total hip arthroplasty using the Kerboull acetabular reinforcement device for Paprosky type III defects involving the inferior margin of the acetabulum. Bone Joint J 100-B(6):725–732. Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Makita H, Kerboull M, Inaba Y, Tezuka T, Saito T, Kerboull L (2017) Revision total hip arthroplasty using the Kerboull acetabular reinforcement device and structural allograft for severe defects of the acetabulum. J Arthroplast 32(11):3502–3509. Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Kim Y, Tanaka C, Kanoe H (2015) Long-term outcome of acetabular reconstruction using a Kerboull-type acetabular reinforcement device with hydroxyapetite granule and structural autograft for AAOS type II and III acetabular defects. J Arthroplast 30(10):1810–1814. Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Hori J, Yasunaga Y, Yamasaki T, Yoshida T, Oshima S, Yamasaki K, Matsuo T, Ochi M (2012) Mid-term results of acetabular reconstruction using a Kerboull-type acetabular reinforcement device. Int Orthop 36(1):23–26. Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Akiyama H, Yamamoto K, Tsukanaka M, Kawanabe K, Otsuka H, So K, Goto K, Nakamura T (2011) Revision total hip arthroplasty using a Kerboull-type acetabular reinforcement device with bone allograft: minimum 4.5-year follow-up results and mechanical analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 93(9):1194–1200. Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Okano K, Miyata N, Enomoto H, Osaki M, Shindo H (2010) Revision with impacted bone allografts and the Kerboull cross plate for massive bone defect of the acetabulum. J Arthroplast 25(4):594–599. Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Kawanabe K, Akiyama H, Onishi E, Nakamura T (2007) Revision total hip replacement using the Kerboull acetabular reinforcement device with morsellised or bulk graft: results at a mean follow-up of 8.7 years. J Bone Joint Surg Br 89(1):26–31. Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Kerboull M, Hamadouche M, Kerboull L (2000) The Kerboull acetabular reinforcement device in major acetabular reconstructions. Clin Orthop Relat Res 378:155–168Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Kosashvili Y, Safir O, Backstein D, Lakstein D, Gross AE (2010) Salvage of failed acetabular cages by nonbuttressed trabecular metal cups. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468(2):466–471. Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Tangsataporn S, Abolghasemian M, Kuzyk PR, Backstein DJ, Safir OA, Gross AE (2013) Salvaged failed roof rings and antiprotrusion cages: surgical options and implant survival. Hip Int 23(2):166–172. Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    López-Torres II, Sanz-Ruíz P, Sánchez-Pérez C, Andrade-Albarracín R, Vaquero J (2018) Clinical and radiological outcomes of trabecular metal systems and antiprotrusion cages in acetabular revision surgery with severe defects: a comparative study. Int Orthop 42(8):1811–1818. Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Nodzo SR, Boyle KK, Pavlesen S, Rachala S (2018) Bone morphogenic protein-2 use in revision total hip arthroplasty with acetabular defects. Int Orthop 42(4):783–789. Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Amirouche F, Solitro GF, Walia A, Gonzalez M, Bobko A (2017) Segmental acetabular rim defects, bone loss, oversizing, and press fit cup in total hip arthroplasty evaluated with a probabilistic finite element analysis. Int Orthop 41(8):1527–1533. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© SICOT aisbl 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Clinical Orthopaedics Research Center, Department of Orthopaedic and Reconstructive SurgeryCentre Hospitalo-Universitaire Cochin-Port RoyalParisFrance

Personalised recommendations