Scott et al: Revision of osteointegrated acetabular cup prostheses in nine dogs
Veterinary Surgery 3, 2025

🔍 Key Findings

Population: 9 dogs underwent revision of osteointegrated acetabular cups after total hip arthroplasty (THA)

Revision Indications:

  • 7 luxations (5 ventral, 2 craniodorsal)
  • 1 femoral stem fracture
  • 1 aseptic stem loosening

Implants:

  • 8 BFX cups, 1 Helica; all revised to BFX
  • 7/9 required a larger cup than original

Cup removal: Required sectioning with a high-speed burr and modular osteotome; removal fragments extracted

Complications:

  • 1 recurrent luxation
  • 1 low-grade infection with possible metallic debris-associated osteolysis
  • 2 femoral fissures managed intraoperatively

Outcomes:

  • Good to excellent function in 6/6 dogs available at median 621 days
  • Minimal complications with success in re-osteointegration of new cup

Clinical takeaway: Revision of stable, ingrown cups is feasible and offers an alternative to pelvic osteotomies; typically requires upsizing

Revision of osteointegrated acetabular cup prostheses in nine dogs
Revision of osteointegrated acetabular cup prostheses in nine dogs
Revision of osteointegrated acetabular cup prostheses in nine dogs
Revision of osteointegrated acetabular cup prostheses in nine dogs
Revision of osteointegrated acetabular cup prostheses in nine dogs
Revision of osteointegrated acetabular cup prostheses in nine dogs
Revision of osteointegrated acetabular cup prostheses in nine dogs
Revision of osteointegrated acetabular cup prostheses in nine dogs
Revision of osteointegrated acetabular cup prostheses in nine dogs
Revision of osteointegrated acetabular cup prostheses in nine dogs
Revision of osteointegrated acetabular cup prostheses in nine dogs
Revision of osteointegrated acetabular cup prostheses in nine dogs

Simini Surgery Review Podcast

How critical is this paper for crushing the Boards?

🚨 Must-know. I’d bet on seeing this.

📚 Useful background, not must-know.

💤 Skip it. Doubt it’ll ever show up.

Thanks for the feedback!
We'll keep fine-tuning the articles vault.
Oops — didn’t go through.
Mind trying that again?

Scott et al: Revision of osteointegrated acetabular cup prostheses in nine dogs
Veterinary Surgery 3, 2025

🔍 Key Findings

Population: 9 dogs underwent revision of osteointegrated acetabular cups after total hip arthroplasty (THA)

Revision Indications:

  • 7 luxations (5 ventral, 2 craniodorsal)
  • 1 femoral stem fracture
  • 1 aseptic stem loosening

Implants:

  • 8 BFX cups, 1 Helica; all revised to BFX
  • 7/9 required a larger cup than original

Cup removal: Required sectioning with a high-speed burr and modular osteotome; removal fragments extracted

Complications:

  • 1 recurrent luxation
  • 1 low-grade infection with possible metallic debris-associated osteolysis
  • 2 femoral fissures managed intraoperatively

Outcomes:

  • Good to excellent function in 6/6 dogs available at median 621 days
  • Minimal complications with success in re-osteointegration of new cup

Clinical takeaway: Revision of stable, ingrown cups is feasible and offers an alternative to pelvic osteotomies; typically requires upsizing

Simini Surgery Review Podcast

Join Now to Access Key Summaries to more Veterinary Surgery Articles!

Multiple Choice Questions on this study

In Scott 2025 et al., on acetabular cup revision, what type of tools were required to remove the osteointegrated cups?

A. Gigli wire and curettes
B. Osteotome only
C. Powered sagittal saw
D. High-speed burr and modular osteotome
E. Flexible osteotome and curette

Answer: High-speed burr and modular osteotome

Explanation: Removal required both high-speed burring and controlled osteotomy to disengage the stable cup.
In Scott 2025 et al., on acetabular cup revision, what was a notable complication observed postoperatively in some cases?

A. Implant loosening due to infection
B. Periprosthetic fracture from torque stress
C. Osteolysis possibly associated with metallic debris
D. Recurrent sciatic nerve compression
E. Implant migration

Answer: Osteolysis possibly associated with metallic debris

Explanation: One case had low-grade infection and osteolysis potentially linked to metal debris.
In Scott 2025 et al., on acetabular cup revision, what revision approach was used in all cases?

A. Reaming out original cup and downsizing
B. Using autologous bone grafts
C. Replacing with a collared stem
D. Cup replacement using a larger press-fit cup
E. Conversion to cemented cup fixation

Answer: Cup replacement using a larger press-fit cup

Explanation: In all 9 dogs, cups were revised to larger-diameter BFX cups for new osseointegration.
In Scott 2025 et al., on acetabular cup revision, what was the most common indication for revision surgery?

A. Femoral stem loosening
B. Femoral fracture
C. Recurrent infection
D. Implant wear
E. Luxation

Answer: Luxation

Explanation: Seven of the nine dogs underwent revision due to prosthetic luxation, most commonly ventral.
In Scott 2025 et al., on acetabular cup revision, what was the functional outcome in dogs that completed follow-up?

A. Poor to fair
B. Fair only
C. Moderate pain and limited use
D. Good to excellent
E. Variable and inconsistent

Answer: Good to excellent

Explanation: All 6 dogs available for follow-up showed good to excellent clinical outcomes over 621 days.

Elevate Your Infection Control Protocol

Implement Simini Protect Lavage for superior, clinically-proven post-operative skin antisepsis and reduced infection risk.