Literature DB >> 11021447

Early failure of revision total hip arthroplasty with cemented precoated femoral components: comparison with uncemented components at 2 to 8 years.

G A Schmale1, P F Lachiewicz, S S Kelley.   

Abstract

This is a retrospective analysis of 2 methods of fixation of the femoral component in 86 consecutive revision arthroplasties, for which all clinical and radiographic data were recorded prospectively. There were 56 cemented revisions using precoated femoral components followed for 2 to 8 years (mean, 4 years) and 30 uncemented, proximally porous-coated femoral revisions followed for 2 to 6 years (mean, 4 years). Of the 56 cemented hips, 31 (55%) had a good or excellent clinical result. Rerevision has been performed in 10 hips, and revision of 3 loose femoral components is pending (23%). Radiographic review of 56 femoral components showed that 16 (29%) had probable or definite loosening. Of 30 cementless hips, 24 (80%) had a good or excellent clinical result. There was radiographic bone ingrowth in 22 of 30 hips (73%). Seven hips (23%) had nonprogressive subsidence, and 3 hips (10%) had progressive subsidence or loosening. Rerevision has been performed in only 2 hips (7%). The high rate of loosening (29%) and rerevision (23%) at a mean follow-up of only 4 years suggests that a precoated femoral component may place increased stress at the already damaged bone-cement interface.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2000        PMID: 11021447     DOI: 10.1054/arth.2000.6623

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Arthroplasty        ISSN: 0883-5403            Impact factor:   4.757


  5 in total

1.  Distal locking stem for revision femoral loosening and peri-prosthetic fractures.

Authors:  Patrice Mertl; Remy Philippot; Philippe Rosset; Henri Migaud; Jacques Tabutin; Denis Van de Velde
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2010-12-24       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  The Modular Universal Tumour And Revision System (MUTARS®) in endoprosthetic revision surgery.

Authors:  Carsten Gebert; Martin Wessling; Christian Götze; Georg Gosheger; Jendrik Hardes
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2010-04-09       Impact factor: 3.075

3.  Comparison of Clinical Efficacy Between Modular Cementless Stem Prostheses and Coated Cementless Long-Stem Prostheses on Bone Defect in Hip Revision Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Huibin Li; Fang Chen; Zhe Wang; Qian Chen
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2016-02-29

4.  Biomechanical effects of morphological variations of the cortical wall at the bone-cement interface.

Authors:  Chun-Lin Zhang; Guo-Qi Shen; Kun-Peng Zhu; Dong-Xu Liu
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2016-07-01       Impact factor: 2.359

5.  Uncemented versus cemented total hip arthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures in elderly patients with osteoporosis: A retrospective analysis.

Authors:  Xiang Zhou; Meiji Chen; Weiguang Yu; Guowei Han; Junxing Ye; Jintao Zhuang
Journal:  J Int Med Res       Date:  2020-08       Impact factor: 1.671

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.