Abstract
The interest in osteolysis has waned largely due to the impact of crosslinked polyethylene and the “rarity” of this phenomenon. However, the basic process still remains: particles, motion observed with unstable implants and host specific factors all play a role in bone loss around implants. There are 2 predominant patterns of lysis: Linear versus Expansile. Linear Lysis: is focal bone loss at the interface as seen in the bone cement interface in when using acrylic or at the implant-host interface with porous ingrowth/ongrowth implants. Expansile Lysis: is observed in less contained regions such as the retro- and supra-acetabular regions around the socket. These lesions can also be quite extensive yet may be subtle in appearance.
Imaging is essential in identifying the extent and magnitude of osteolysis. Available modalities include plain radiographs although they can be of limited value in that even with oblique views, they often underestimate the degree of bone loss. CT scans are useful but can be limited by artifact. Several centers have explored the role of MRI in assessing lysis. It can be useful for bone loss and provides excellent assessment for soft tissue: abductors, neurovascular structures. Metal artifact reduction sequencing is required to maximise information obtainable.
Management of osteolysis: Identification and monitoring periprosthetic osteolysis is a crucial element of patient care. Progressive bone loss leading to loss of fixation and the potential risk for periprosthetic fracture is a real possibility and early recognition and intervention is a priority. The basic Guiding Principles of management are centered around several key elements including the source of osteolysis and degree, the fixation of implant, the location of lysis, the track record of implant system, the presence of patient symptoms (if any), and finally the patient age, activity level, and general health.
Specifics of treatment of osteolysis around the acetabulum: With cemented sockets, lysis is typically seen late and frequently at the bone-cement interface. It is often associated with a loose implant and the prime indication for surgery may be pain. Treatment involves implant removal and revision with an uncemented cup and bone grafting or augmentation as needed.
With uncemented sockets in the setting of osteolysis, there are several factors to consider. These have been stratified by Rubash, Maloney, and Paprosky. The treatment of these sockets has been summarised as follows: for Type I and Type II with limited lysis, lesional treatment such as debridement and bone grafting with head and polyethylene exchange has been suggested. WATCH for impingement!!!! Graft defects via trap-doors can be performed but make the door big enough to graft. Small doors and grafting through screw holes is at best marginal. In instances of compromised locking mechanisms, consider cementing the liner into the shell.
For Type II and Type III implants, revision of the component is recommended. With the currently available cementless cup extraction tools, I rarely hesitate to remove a cup with moderate lysis and a broken locking mechanism: better access to lytic areas, better grafting achieved. CAVEAT #1: the disadvantage of implant removal is that it is clearly a bigger procedure and fixation of the new implant may be more difficult. Risks vs. rewards. CAVEAT #2: Socket revision in the setting of failed MOM implants has some unique “issues”. In the Vancouver series, almost 25% of the revision cups failed to achieve biologic fixation. As such, recommendation for using “enhanced” porous implants during revision seems prudent. Additionally, despite the use of larger diameter heads, instability rates remain high.
