Literature DB >> 12375244

Success rate of modular component exchange for the treatment of an unstable total hip arthroplasty.

Mark D Earll1, Thomas K Fehring, William L Griffin, J Bohannon Mason, Thomas McCoy, Susan Odum.   

Abstract

Hip instability is the leading cause of morbidity after total hip arthroplasty. Surgical strategies that have been used to eliminate recurrent instability include component revision, trochanteric advancement, or the use of constrained components. Between 1986 and 1997, 731 revision total hip arthroplasties were performed at our institution. A total of 29 patients underwent modular component exchange to treat hip instability. After revision surgery, 16 of 29 (55%) patients experienced redislocation. Nine (31% overall) patients dislocated repeatedly after modular component exchange. Five of the 9 patients who dislocated repeatedly (17% overall) ultimately required rerevision to obtain stability. Modular component exchange is an unpredictable procedure in definitively solving hip stability problems. The limitations of this procedure in treating this complex multifactorial problem must be understood by patient and surgeon alike. Copyright 2002, Elsevier Science (USA)

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12375244     DOI: 10.1054/arth.2002.34823

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


  11 in total

1.  Constrained cups appear incapable of meeting the demands of revision THA.

Authors:  Philip C Noble; Salim K Durrani; Molly M Usrey; Kenneth B Mathis; Nikolaos V Bardakos
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Efficacy of revision surgery for the dislocating total hip arthroplasty: report from a large community registry.

Authors:  Tiare Salassa; Daniel Hoeffel; Susan Mehle; Penny Tatman; Terence J Gioe
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-10-23       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  Use of a dual mobility socket to manage total hip arthroplasty instability.

Authors:  Olivier Guyen; Vincent Pibarot; Gualter Vaz; Christophe Chevillotte; Jacques Béjui-Hugues
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2008-09-09       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  Instability after total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Brian C Werner; Thomas E Brown
Journal:  World J Orthop       Date:  2012-08-18

5.  Method of fixation does not influence the overall risk of rerevision in first-time cup revisions.

Authors:  Maziar Mohaddes; Göran Garellick; Johan Kärrholm
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 6.  Total hip arthroplasty instability in Italy.

Authors:  Francesco Falez; Matteo Papalia; Fabio Favetti; Gabriele Panegrossi; Filippo Casella; Gianluca Mazzotta
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2016-12-20       Impact factor: 3.075

7.  Isolated polyethylene exchange versus acetabular revision for polyethylene wear.

Authors:  Camilo Restrepo; Elie Ghanem; Carrie Houssock; Mathew Austin; Javad Parvizi; William J Hozack
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2008-10-10       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  Mid-term outcomes of titanium modular neck femoral stems in revision total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Hervé Ouanezar; Thomas Jalaguier; Florent Franck; Vincent Pibarot; Hugo Bothorel; Mo Saffarini; Jean-Pierre Piton
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2019-03

9.  The use of a dual mobility cup in the management of recurrent dislocations of hip hemiarthroplasty.

Authors:  Christian Carulli; Armando Macera; Fabrizio Matassi; Roberto Civinini; Massimo Innocenti
Journal:  J Orthop Traumatol       Date:  2015-07-18

10.  Stem modularity alone is not effective in reducing dislocation rate in hip revision surgery.

Authors:  Dario Regis; Andrea Sandri; Pietro Bartolozzi
Journal:  J Orthop Traumatol       Date:  2009-11-18
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.