Literature DB >> 15805204

The use of structural distal femoral allografts for acetabular reconstruction. Average ten-year follow-up.

Scott M Sporer1, Michael O'Rourke, Paul Chong, Wayne G Paprosky.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Acetabular fixation during revision total hip arthroplasty in patients who have a nonsupportive superior dome and proximal migration of the acetabular component (a Paprosky Type-IIIa defect) cannot be achieved reliably with use of a hemispherical porous-coated component alone. The purposes of the present study were to determine the long-term results associated with the use of a porous-coated hemispherical acetabular component, supported with a distal femoral structural allograft, for revision at the site of a Type-IIIa defect and to determine if graft resorption leads to late failure.
METHODS: Thirty-one patients who had an acetabular reconstruction with use of a distal femoral allograft for the treatment of a Type-IIIa defect between January 1985 and December 1990 were followed annually with clinical and radiographic evaluations. At the time of the latest follow-up, eight patients had died and one patient had been lost to follow-up. One of the patients who died had had a clinical failure at 4.5 years postoperatively and was included in the analysis. Therefore, twenty-three patients, who had had an average age of sixty-one years at the time of the index procedure, were evaluated at an average of 10.3 years postoperatively.
RESULTS: Five acetabular components were re-revised because of aseptic loosening at an average of 5.3 years after the index procedure. Radiographically, all but one of the remaining components were stable and showed evidence of bone ingrowth. The average Merle D'Aubigné and Postel hip score improved from 5 points preoperatively to 10 points at the time of the latest follow-up. Allograft bone resorption, although difficult to quantitate, was observed around six of the seventeen stable components and around two of the five components that failed clinically.
CONCLUSIONS: Acetabular revision with use of a porous-coated acetabular component along with a structural distal femoral allograft for the treatment of a Type-IIIa defect demonstrated a high rate of clinical and radiographic success after an average of ten years of follow-up.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15805204     DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.D.02099

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am        ISSN: 0021-9355            Impact factor:   5.284


  31 in total

1.  Large acetabular defects can be managed with cementless revision components.

Authors:  E Scott Paxton; James A Keeney; William J Maloney; John C Clohisy
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Long-term results for minor column allografts in revision hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Paul T H Lee; Guy Raz; Oleg A Safir; David J Backstein; Allan E Gross
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  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

4.  A review of the treatment of pelvic discontinuity.

Authors:  M Villanueva; A Rios-Luna; J Pereiro De Lamo; H Fahandez-Saddi; M P G Böstrom
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2008-07-15

Review 5.  [Acetabular defect reconstruction in revision surgery of the hip. Autologous, homologous or metal?].

Authors:  S Gravius; G Pagenstert; O Weber; N Kraska; H Röhrig; D C Wirtz
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 1.087

6.  Surface replacement of the hip can result in decreased acetabular bone stock.

Authors:  Michael Tanzer; Dylan Tanzer; Karen Smith
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 7.  Cementless acetabular revision: past, present, and future. Revision total hip arthroplasty: the acetabular side using cementless implants.

Authors:  Luis Pulido; Sridhar R Rachala; Miguel E Cabanela
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2011-01-14       Impact factor: 3.075

8.  Modular acetabular reconstructive cup in acetabular revision total hip arthroplasty at a minimum ten year follow-up.

Authors:  Takashi Sakai; Kenji Ohzono; Takashi Nishii; Masaki Takao; Hidenobu Miki; Nobuo Nakamura; Nobuhiko Sugano
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2013-02-20       Impact factor: 3.075

9.  Does hip resurfacing require larger acetabular cups than conventional THA?

Authors:  Florian D Naal; Michael S H Kain; Otmar Hersche; Urs Munzinger; Michael Leunig
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2009-01-14       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  The use of customized cages in revision total hip arthroplasty for Paprosky type III acetabular bone defects.

Authors:  Yuanqing Mao; Chen Xu; Jiawei Xu; Huiwu Li; Fengxiang Liu; Degang Yu; Zhenan Zhu
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2015-08-19       Impact factor: 3.075

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.