Literature DB >> 16741734

Bone substitution in revision hip replacement.

C Nich1, L Sedel.   

Abstract

The aim of this retrospective study was to report the preliminary results of femoral peri-prosthetic bone defect reconstruction with a synthetic bone substitute. Twenty-one revisions of the femoral component in 20 patients were evaluated. The mean age at operation was 65.7 years (range, 30 to 79 years). Preoperative femoral deficiencies were rated grade II in 7 cases and grade III in 14 cases according to the SOFCOT classification. None was rated grade IV. Femoral revision was indicated for loosening in 18 hips (including 8 septic cases), femoral osteolysis (1 hip), persistent pain (1 hip) and recurrent dislocation (1 hip). Once the loose prosthesis had been removed, calcium phosphate ceramic (CPC) granules (14 cases) or ceramic granules + cancellous allograft (5 cases) or autograft (2) were firmly impacted in the femoral canal. The stem was standard and always cemented using modern cementing technique. At a mean follow-up of 36 months (range, 14 to 76 months), 90% of the hips were rated good or very good according to the Merle d'Aubigné score. Two diaphyseal femoral fractures occurred and later united. Two hips required re-revision (aseptic loosening; septic recurrence). The absence of radiological osteolysis in 17 cases suggested direct bonding between ceramic granules and bone. Stem subsidence occurred in two cases and was limited (5 and 8 mm). Femoral bone reconstruction using impacted CPC or CPC in conjunction with bone graft in revision hip replacement commonly provided restoration of the bone stock in the short to mid-term. Further long-term studies will be necessary to support this conclusion.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16741734      PMCID: PMC3172735          DOI: 10.1007/s00264-006-0135-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Orthop        ISSN: 0341-2695            Impact factor:   3.075


  27 in total

1.  Quantitative comparison of bone growth behavior in granules of Bioglass, A-W glass-ceramic, and hydroxyapatite.

Authors:  H Oonishi; L L Hench; J Wilson; F Sugihara; E Tsuji; M Matsuura; S Kin; T Yamamoto; S Mizokawa
Journal:  J Biomed Mater Res       Date:  2000-07

2.  Radiostereometric analysis in hip revision surgery--optimal time for index examination: 6 patients revised with impacted allografts and cement followed weekly for 6 weeks.

Authors:  E Ornstein; H Franzén; R Johnsson; M Sundberg
Journal:  Acta Orthop Scand       Date:  2000-08

3.  Results of hip revision using the Exeter stem, impacted allograft bone, and cement.

Authors:  E Ornstein; I Atroshi; H Franzén; R Johnsson; P Sandquist; M Sundberg
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 4.  The 'French paradox.'.

Authors:  F Langlais; M Kerboull; L Sedel; R S M Ling
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2003-01

5.  Hydroxyapatite in revision of total hip replacements with massive acetabular defects: 4- to 10-year clinical results.

Authors:  H Oonishi; Y Iwaki; N Kin; S Kushitani; N Murata; S Wakitani; K Imoto
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1997-01

6.  Impaction allografting with cement for extensive femoral bone loss in revision hip surgery: a 4- to 8-year follow-up study.

Authors:  G B Fetzer; J J Callaghan; J E Templeton; D D Goetz; P M Sullivan; R C Johnston
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 4.757

7.  Hydroxyapatite granules interposed at bone-cement interface in total hip replacements: histological study of retrieved specimens.

Authors:  H Oonishi; Y Kadoya; H Iwaki; N Kin
Journal:  J Biomed Mater Res       Date:  2000

8.  Impaction bone-grafting before insertion of a femoral stem with cement in revision total hip arthroplasty. A minimum two-year follow-up study.

Authors:  J B Meding; M A Ritter; E M Keating; P M Faris
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1997-12       Impact factor: 5.284

9.  Impaction bone grafting in revision hip surgery. A high incidence of complications.

Authors:  J Pekkarinen; A Alho; J Lepistö; M Ylikoski; P Ylinen; T Paavilainen
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2000-01

10.  Osseointegration in cortical sheep bone of calcium phosphate implants evaluated by PIXE method and histology.

Authors:  F Braye; G Weber; J L Irigaray; P Frayssinet
Journal:  J Biomed Mater Res       Date:  1997-09-05
View more
  5 in total

1.  Long, titanium, cemented stems decreased late periprosthetic fractures and revisions in patients with severe bone loss and previous revision.

Authors:  Philippe Hernigou; Hernigou Philippe; Nicolas Dupuys; Dupuys Nicolas; Jerome Delambre; Delambre Jerome; Isaac Guissou; Guissou Isaac; Alexandre Poignard; Poignard Alexandre; Jerome Allain; Allain Jerome; Charles Henri Flouzat Lachaniette
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2014-09-18       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 2.  Recommendations and considerations for the use of biologics in orthopedic surgery.

Authors:  Stefan Zwingenberger; Christophe Nich; Roberto D Valladares; Zhenyu Yao; Maik Stiehler; Stuart B Goodman
Journal:  BioDrugs       Date:  2012-08-01       Impact factor: 5.807

3.  Major bone defect treatment with an osteoconductive bone substitute.

Authors:  Stefania Paderni; S Terzi; L Amendola
Journal:  Chir Organi Mov       Date:  2009-06-16

4.  Biphasic calcium phosphate bioceramics for orthopaedic reconstructions: clinical outcomes.

Authors:  Carlos A Garrido; Sonja E Lobo; Flávio M Turíbio; Racquel Z Legeros
Journal:  Int J Biomater       Date:  2011-06-28

Review 5.  Bone grafts and biomaterials substitutes for bone defect repair: A review.

Authors:  Wenhao Wang; Kelvin W K Yeung
Journal:  Bioact Mater       Date:  2017-06-07
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.