Literature DB >> 16085621

Revision of the acetabular component without cement after total hip arthroplasty. A concise follow-up, at fifteen to nineteen years, of a previous report.

Craig J Della Valle1, Tasin Shuaipaj, Richard A Berger, Aaron G Rosenberg, Susan Shott, Joshua J Jacobs, Jorge O Galante.   

Abstract

We previously reported our results at a minimum of three and seven years after use of a porous-coated acetabular metal shell in a consecutive series of 138 revision total hip arthroplasties. The current report presents the longer-term outcomes of these procedures, at fifteen to nineteen years postoperatively. A total of twenty metal shells (14%) underwent repeat revision. Seven of the repeat revisions were performed because of recurrent dislocation, seven were done at the time of femoral revision surgery, and six were done because of infection. Nineteen of the revised shells were well fixed, and one was aseptically loose. Of the sixty-seven hips in which the acetabular component survived for more than fifteen years after the index operation, two (3%) required a change of the modular acetabular liner because of wear or osteolysis. Nine (16%) of the fifty-seven hips with at least fifteen years of radiographic follow-up had an osteolytic lesion of >1 cm in diameter. The fifteen-year survival rate of the metal shells, with failure defined as revision because of loosening or as radiographic evidence of loosening, was 97%. Revision total hip arthroplasty with this cementless acetabular component has been followed by excellent component survivorship at fifteen years; the most common reasons for repeat revision were recurrent dislocation and infection.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16085621     DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.D.01818

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


  16 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.  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

Review 3.  Systematic review on outcomes of acetabular revisions with highly-porous metals.

Authors:  Samik Banerjee; Kimona Issa; Bhaveen H Kapadia; Robert Pivec; Harpal S Khanuja; Michael A Mont
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2013-11-01       Impact factor: 3.075

4.  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

5.  An alternative treatment option for Paprosky Type IIIb acetabular defect using multiple tantalum wedges - A case report.

Authors:  Markus Rossmann; Christian Ansorge; Christian Lausmann; Eduardo M Suero; Thorsten Gehrke; Mustafa Citak
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2018-10-25

6.  Use of porous tantalum components in Paprosky two and three acetabular revision. A minimum five-year follow-up of fifty one hips.

Authors:  Xavier Flecher; Benjamin Appy; Sébastien Parratte; Matthieu Ollivier; Jean-Noel Argenson
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2016-10-21       Impact factor: 3.075

7.  Cementless two-staged total hip arthroplasty with a short term interval period for chronic deep periprosthetic infection. Technique and long-term results.

Authors:  Jochen Erhart; Karl Jaklitsch; Mark Schurz; Vilmos Vécsei; Reinhard Ehall
Journal:  Wien Klin Wochenschr       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 1.704

8.  Revision hip arthroplasty: infection is the most common cause of failure.

Authors:  S Mehdi Jafari; Catelyn Coyle; S M Javad Mortazavi; Peter F Sharkey; Javad Parvizi
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  Promising Mid-term Results With a Cup-cage Construct for Large Acetabular Defects and Pelvic Discontinuity.

Authors:  Tomas Amenabar; Wael A Rahman; Bandar M Hetaimish; Paul R Kuzyk; Oleg A Safir; Allan E Gross
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  Trabecular metal acetabular revision system (cup-cage construct) to address the massive acetabular defects in revision arthroplasty.

Authors:  Rajesh Malhotra; Ramprasad Kancherla; Vijay Kumar; Aditya Soral
Journal:  Indian J Orthop       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 1.251

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.