Literature DB >> 12068424

Minimal 11-year follow-up of extensively porous-coated stems in femoral revision total hip arthroplasty.

Steven H Weeden1, Wayne G Paprosky.   

Abstract

Between 1984 and 1989, 188 consecutive femoral revision surgeries were performed. Eighteen patients died or were lost to follow-up, and the remaining 170 patients were followed for 11 to 16 years (mean, 14.2 years). Radiographic evidence of a bone ingrown stem was present in 82% of the hips, stable fibrous fixation was present in 14% of the hips, and 4% of the hips were unstable. Six stems were revised to a larger, fully coated cementless implant. Proximal femoral osteolysis was seen in 23% of femora but was limited to Gruen zones 1 and 7. No diaphyseal osteolysis was seen. The overall mechanical failure rate in this series was 4.1%. Failure of fixation correlated highly with extent of bone loss present at the time of surgery. On the basis of the radiographic and clinical results at a mean follow-up of 14.2 years, we recommend the use of extensively coated femoral stems in revision hip arthroplasty. Copyright 2002, Elsevier Science (USA).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12068424     DOI: 10.1054/arth.2002.32461

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


  42 in total

Review 1.  Assessment of fixation in cementless femoral revision of total hip arthroplasty: comparison of the Engh score versus radiolucent line measurement.

Authors:  Olivier Roche; Julien Girard; François Canovas; Henri Migaud; François Bonnomet; Mathias Goldschild; Pierre Le Béguec
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2015-11-17       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  CORR Insights(®): Is There a Benefit to Modularity in 'Simpler' Femoral Revisions?

Authors:  C Anderson Engh
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-08-25       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  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

4.  Why revision total hip arthroplasty fails.

Authors:  Bryan D Springer; Thomas K Fehring; William L Griffin; Susan M Odum; John L Masonis
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2008-10-31       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Are short fully coated stems adequate for "simple" femoral revisions?

Authors:  Matthew W Tetreault; Sanjai K Shukla; Paul H Yi; Scott M Sporer; Craig J Della Valle
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  What is the survivorship of fully coated femoral components in revision hip arthroplasty?

Authors:  Paul F Lachiewicz; Elizabeth S Soileau
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  Femoral revision hip arthroplasty: a comparison of two stem designs.

Authors:  Corey J Richards; Clive P Duncan; Bassam A Masri; Donald S Garbuz
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  Do Rerevision Rates Differ After First-time Revision of Primary THA With a Cemented and Cementless Femoral Component?

Authors:  Kirill Gromov; Alma B Pedersen; Søren Overgaard; Peter Gebuhr; Henrik Malchau; Anders Troelsen
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  Revision total hip arthroplasty using an extensively porous coated femoral stem.

Authors:  Kyoung Ho Moon; Joon Soon Kang; Sang Hyup Lee; Sae Rom Jung
Journal:  Clin Orthop Surg       Date:  2009-05-30

10.  Extensively coated revision stems in proximally deficient femur: early results in 15 patients.

Authors:  S K S Marya; R Thukral
Journal:  Indian J Orthop       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 1.251

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.