PMC9192304_01
(a) Preoperative X-ray. (b) "Footing" type augment at the cavitary defect. (c) Cup insertion. (d) Cup-augment construct. (e) Polyethylene insertion. (f) Intraoperative image after reduction of the hip. (g) Postoperative X-ray. (h) 5 y follow-up.
CRIOR2022-4062172.001.jpg
PMC9192304_01_CRIOR2022-4062172.001.jpg
fig1
Paprosky IIIA, with lateral and superior migration of the implant more than 3 cm (Figure 1). Posterolateral approach was performed. The follow-up at 5 years shows no radiolucent lines and no migration of implants (Figure 1).
PMC9192304_02
(a) Preoperative X-ray. (b) Simulation of reconstruction with trial implants. (c) Insertion of the cup. (d) "Staple" type implant. (e) Construct after augment implantation. (f) Polyethylene insertion. (g) Postoperative X-ray. (h) 5-year follow-up X-ray.
CRIOR2022-4062172.002.jpg
PMC9192304_02_CRIOR2022-4062172.002.jpg
fig2
The second patient is a 72-year-old man that presented a Paprosky IIB defect, with a posterosuperior cavitary/segmental defect (Figure 2). The follow-up at 5 years showed good osseointegration of the cup with no migration of implants (Figure 2).
PMC9192304_03
(a) Preoperative X-ray. (b) Intraoperative image after insertion of the cup. (c) and (d) Planification of augment size with trial implants. (e) and (f) Insertion of augment implant ("staple" type). (g) Postoperative X-ray. (h) Two-year follow-up X-ray.
CRIOR2022-4062172.003.jpg
PMC9192304_03_CRIOR2022-4062172.003.jpg
fig3
The radiological images showed a Paprosky IIB defect, with lateral and anterosuperior migration of the implant less than 3 cm (Figure 3). Follow-up at 2 years showed no migration of the implant (Figure 3).