Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Burch–Schneider cage for reconstruction after metastatic destruction of the acetabulum: outcome and complications

  • Hip Arthroplasty
  • Published:
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

The Burch–Schneider cage is an established implant in revision surgery after hip arthroplasty that is used for reconstructing osseous defects in the acetabulum. However, there are only a few reports about the use of cages in patients with metastatic destruction of the acetabulum. The aim of this retrospective study was to assess the outcome and complications of this procedure.

Methods

The records of 15 patients with metastatic acetabular defects using the Burch–Schneider cage were examined pre- and postoperatively. X-rays were analyzed, clinical and functional outcome was assessed by the Harris hip score (HHS) and the visual analogue scale (VAS) for subjective pain perception. The follow-up of 14 months was due to the underlying disease.

Results

The overall revision rate was 26%. The HHS improved from 33 (range 25–39) to 69 (range 35–93). The VAS improved from 7.5 to 3.2.

Conclusion

The life expectancy of patients with bone metastasis can be short and patients should be carefully selected for a surgical treatment. The implantation of a protrusio cage can improve the quality of life in these patients by increasing their mobility and reducing pain. The complication rate is comparable with the rates for other surgical methods for metastatic acetabular lesions. For surgeons who are familiar with this implant, it seems to be a good option in treating such cases.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Schneider R (1980) Reinforcement of the cup in total hip prosthesis (author’s transl). Unfallheilkunde 83:482

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Berry DJ, Muller ME (1992) Revision arthroplasty using an anti-protrusio cage for massive acetabular bone deficiency. J Bone Joint Surg Br 74:711

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. 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 15:959

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Winter E, Piert M, Volkmann R, Maurer F, Eingartner C, Weise K et al (2001) Allogeneic cancellous bone graft and a Burch–Schneider ring for acetabular reconstruction in revision hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 83-A:862

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Tidermark J, Blomfeldt R, Ponzer S, Soderqvist A, Tornkvist H (2003) Primary total hip arthroplasty with a Burch–Schneider antiprotrusion cage and autologous bone grafting for acetabular fractures in elderly patients. J Orthop Trauma 17:193

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Harrington KD (1981) The management of acetabular insufficiency secondary to metastatic malignant disease. J Bone Joint Surg Am 63:653

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Harris WH (1969) Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 51:737

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Gill TJ, Sledge JB, Muller ME (1998) The Burch–Schneider anti-protrusio cage in revision total hip arthroplasty: indications, principles and long-term results. J Bone Joint Surg Br 80:946

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Hansen BH, Keller J, Laitinen M, Berg P, Skjeldal S, Trovik C et al (2004) The Scandinavian Sarcoma Group Skeletal Metastasis Register. Survival after surgery for bone metastases in the pelvis and extremities. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl 75:11

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Pieringer H, Auersperg V, Bohler N (2006) Reconstruction of severe acetabular bone-deficiency: the Burch–Schneider antiprotrusio cage in primary and revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 21:489

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. van Koeveringe AJ, Ochsner PE (2002) Revision cup arthroplasty using Burch–Schneider anti-protrusio cage. Int Orthop 26:291

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Marco RA, Sheth DS, Boland PJ, Wunder JS, Siegel JA, Healey JH (2000) Functional and oncological outcome of acetabular reconstruction for the treatment of metastatic disease. J Bone Joint Surg Am 82:642

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Perka C, Ludwig R (2001) Reconstruction of segmental defects during revision procedures of the acetabulum with the Burch–Schneider anti-protrusio cage. J Arthroplast 16:568

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Stark A, Bauer HC (1996) Reconstruction in metastatic destruction of the acetabulum. Support rings and arthroplasty in 12 patients. Acta Orthop Scand 67:435–438

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Vena VE, Hsu J, Rosier RN, O’Keefe RJ (1999) Pelvic reconstruction for severe periacetabular metastatic disease. Clin Orthop Relat Res (362):171

  17. Clayer M (2010) The survivorship of protrusio cages for metastatic disease involving the acetabulum. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468:2980

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Nilsson J, Gustafson P, Fornander P, Ornstein E (2000) The Harrington reconstruction for advanced periacetabular metastatic destruction: good outcome in 32 patients. Acta Orthop Scand 71:591

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Parikh SN, Kreder HJ (2005) Pelvic reconstruction for massive acetabular insufficiency. Clin Orthop Relat Res (434):217

  20. Allan DG, Bell RS, Davis A, Langer F (1995) Complex acetabular reconstruction for metastatic tumor. J Arthroplast 10:301

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Tillman RM, Myers GJ, Abudu AT, Carter SR, Grimer RJ (2008) The three-pin modified “Harrington” procedure for advanced metastatic destruction of the acetabulum. J Bone Joint Surg Br 90:84

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of General Orthopedics and Tumor Orthopedics, University Hospital Muenster, 48149, Muenster, Germany

    Steffen Hoell, Nicolas Dedy, Georg Gosheger, Ralf Dieckmann, Kiriakos Daniilidis & Jendrik Hardes

Authors
  1. Steffen Hoell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nicolas Dedy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Georg Gosheger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ralf Dieckmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kiriakos Daniilidis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jendrik Hardes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steffen Hoell.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hoell, S., Dedy, N., Gosheger, G. et al. The Burch–Schneider cage for reconstruction after metastatic destruction of the acetabulum: outcome and complications. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 132, 405–410 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-011-1351-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-011-1351-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation