Literature DB >> 16322619

Revision arthroplasty with use of a total femur prosthesis.

C Friesecke1, J Plutat, A Block.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Surgeons performing revision arthroplasties of the hip and knee are confronted with a growing number of patients with extensive loss of bone stock. Implantation of a total femur prosthesis is a possible method of treatment of such patients. The purpose of this study was to assess the functional outcomes and the complications associated with total femur replacements used in revision arthroplasty.
METHODS: We evaluated the results associated with 100 total femur prostheses that had been implanted during revision arthroplasty in 100 consecutive patients without infection. The mean duration of follow-up was five years. The prosthesis was implanted because of a complication of a total hip replacement in seventy-seven patients, because of a complication of a total knee replacement in four, and because of a complication affecting the diaphysis of the femur in nineteen. Thirty-nine patients had sustained a periprosthetic fracture, usually in combination with loosening of the prosthesis, before the revision. The radiographs made at the time of the latest follow-up were evaluated for signs of loosening and material failure. The preoperative and postoperative function of the hip and knee was assessed according to the Enneking score. Five patients were lost to follow-up.
RESULTS: Sixty-five patients (68%) had no complications. Deep infection was found in twelve patients (13%); dislocation, in six (6%); material failure, in three (3%); patellar problems, in two (2%); and peroneal nerve palsy, in one (1%). The mean preoperative Enneking score for hip function was 1.25 points, and it improved to 3.29 points postoperatively. The mean Enneking score for knee function was 2.09 points preoperatively and 3.29 points postoperatively.
CONCLUSIONS: We believe that the total femur prosthesis is a useful implant for patients with extensive bone loss at revision arthroplasty. While the infection rate was high, the overall functional results for both the hip and the knee were rated as better than good with the Enneking classification.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16322619     DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.D.02770

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


  25 in total

Review 1.  Current concepts in total femoral replacement.

Authors:  Deepak Ramanathan; Marcelo Bp Siqueira; Alison K Klika; Carlos A Higuera; Wael K Barsoum; Michael J Joyce
Journal:  World J Orthop       Date:  2015-12-18

Review 2.  [Periprosthetic knee infection. One-stage exchange].

Authors:  C Friesecke; J Wodtke
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 1.087

3.  [The infected implant].

Authors:  J Wodtke; J F Löhr
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 1.087

4.  Local recurrence, survival and function after total femur resection and megaprosthetic reconstruction for bone sarcomas.

Authors:  Pietro Ruggieri; Giuseppe Bosco; Elisa Pala; Costantino Errani; Mario Mercuri
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Proximal femoral replacement in non-oncologic patients undergoing revision total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Ivan De Martino; Rocco D'Apolito; Allina A Nocon; Thomas P Sculco; Peter K Sculco; Mathias P Bostrom
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2018-11-10       Impact factor: 3.075

6.  Total femur prosthesis in oncological and not oncological series. Survival and failures.

Authors:  Francesco Muratori; Nicola Mondanelli; Xhulio Prifti; Guido Scoccianti; Giuliana Roselli; Filippo Frenos; Rodolfo Capanna; Domenico Andrea Campanacci
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2019-11-12

7.  The push-through total femoral prosthesis offers a functional alternative to total femoral replacement: a case series.

Authors:  Jelle Gorter; Joris J W Ploegmakers; Bas L E F Ten Have; Hendrik W B Schreuder; Paul C Jutte
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2017-03-30       Impact factor: 3.075

8.  Interposition sleeve as treatment option for interprosthetic fractures of the femur: a biomechanical in vitro assessment.

Authors:  Lukas Weiser; Michal A Korecki; Kay Sellenschloh; Florian Fensky; Klaus Püschel; Michael M Morlock; Johannes M Rueger; Wolfgang Lehmann
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2015-04-26       Impact factor: 3.075

9.  [Management of periprosthetic infection].

Authors:  C Friesecke; J Wodtke
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 0.955

10.  Length of Endoprosthetic Reconstruction in Revision Knee Arthroplasty Is Associated With Complications and Reoperations.

Authors:  Jeffrey J Barry; Zachary Thielen; David C Sing; Paul H Yi; Erik N Hansen; Michael Ries
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 4.176

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.