AIM AND METHOD: To analyse the femoral fixation of a modular cementless revision endoprosthesis, eight prosthetic combinations of the Revitan-System (Centerpulse, Winterthur, Switzerland) were implanted in four cadavers. On three cadavers a curved revision Revitan stem was implanted by an endofemoral approach on one side and by a transfemoral approach on the contralateral side. On the fourth cadaver a straight Revitan stem was implanted on one side and a curved Revitan stem on the contralateral side using a transfemoral approach. Transversal slides of 7-8 mm thickness were performed at the fixation areas of each implant and the implant-bone contact was analysed macroscopically and using contact radiography. RESULTS: The straight stem implanted by a transfemoral approach showed a double-conical press-fit fixation with cutting of the eight longitudinal fins into the cortical bone. The curved revision stems implanted by the same approach had a circular surface fixation similar to the press-fit fixation of the straight stem. In contrast, the curved stems implanted by the endofemoral approach (without a window) showed a three-surface fixation. Hereby the two distal fixation areas led to the primary implant stability by three of the four double edges of the octagonal cross-sectional area cutting into the cortical bone. At the proximal fixation zone the implant only had contact of two implant double edges to the cortical bone. CONCLUSION: Different approaches for implantation lead to different fixation techniques of a curved revision stem. This should be considered by analysing postoperative sintering rates of cementless revision stems.
AIM AND METHOD: To analyse the femoral fixation of a modular cementless revision endoprosthesis, eight prosthetic combinations of the Revitan-System (Centerpulse, Winterthur, Switzerland) were implanted in four cadavers. On three cadavers a curved revision Revitan stem was implanted by an endofemoral approach on one side and by a transfemoral approach on the contralateral side. On the fourth cadaver a straight Revitan stem was implanted on one side and a curved Revitan stem on the contralateral side using a transfemoral approach. Transversal slides of 7-8 mm thickness were performed at the fixation areas of each implant and the implant-bone contact was analysed macroscopically and using contact radiography. RESULTS: The straight stem implanted by a transfemoral approach showed a double-conical press-fit fixation with cutting of the eight longitudinal fins into the cortical bone. The curved revision stems implanted by the same approach had a circular surface fixation similar to the press-fit fixation of the straight stem. In contrast, the curved stems implanted by the endofemoral approach (without a window) showed a three-surface fixation. Hereby the two distal fixation areas led to the primary implant stability by three of the four double edges of the octagonal cross-sectional area cutting into the cortical bone. At the proximal fixation zone the implant only had contact of two implant double edges to the cortical bone. CONCLUSION: Different approaches for implantation lead to different fixation techniques of a curved revision stem. This should be considered by analysing postoperative sintering rates of cementless revision stems.
Authors: Bernd Fink; Alexandra Grossmann; Martin Fuerst; Peter Schäfer; Lars Frommelt Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2008-11-11 Impact factor: 4.176