Literature DB >> 17477032

Proximal femoral megaprosthesis for failed total hip arthroplasty.

Shu-Tai Shih1, Jun-Wen Wang, Chia-Chen Hsu.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to assess the clinical outcome and complications of megaprostheses for massive proximal femoral bone loss after failed total hip arthroplasty.
METHODS: Between June 1997 and December 2002, 12 patients (12 hips) with massive proximal femoral deficiencies had reconstruction of the hip using proximal femoral megaprostheses. The average age of the patients was 59 years (range 25 to 75).
RESULTS: At an average of 5.7 years (range 3.3 to 9) after surgery, eight patients (67%) had a satisfactory result, one had fair and three had poor results. The complications included dislocation in 5 (42%), deep infection in 4 (33%), ectopic ossification in 1 (8%), leg shortening > 3 cm in 2 (16.7%), displacement of the greater trochanter in 3 (25%) and aseptic loosening of the megaprosthesis in 1 (8%). The early dislocation rate was 75% but this was subsequently reduced to 14% in the later period after use of an abduction brace postoperatively. The average Harris hip score of the 12 patients preoperatively was 30 points (range 16-42). The average Harris hip score of the 9 patients with a retained megaprosthesis was 83 points (range 68 to 92).
CONCLUSION: Patients with a failed total hip arthroplasty and massive proximal femoral bone loss can be salvaged with a proximal femoral megaprosthesis if there is no other alternative. However, this procedure is technically demanding and has a high rate of complications. The routine use of an abduction brace postoperatively is advised to reduce the dislocation rate.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17477032

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Chang Gung Med J        ISSN: 2072-0939


  9 in total

Review 1.  Megaprosthesis versus Allograft Prosthesis Composite for massive skeletal defects.

Authors:  Deepak Gautam; Rajesh Malhotra
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2017-09-25

Review 2.  Classifications In Brief: The Paprosky Classification of Femoral Bone Loss.

Authors:  David A Ibrahim; Navin D Fernando
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2016-08-02       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 3.  Megaprosthesis Versus Allograft Prosthesis Composite for the Management of Massive Skeletal Defects: A Meta-Analysis of Comparative Studies.

Authors:  Deepak Gautam; Nitish Arora; Saurabh Gupta; Jaiben George; Rajesh Malhotra
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2021-04-17

4.  Two stage revision with a proximal femur replacement.

Authors:  Ralf Dieckmann; Tom Schmidt-Braekling; Georg Gosheger; Christoph Theil; Jendrik Hardes; Burkhard Moellenbeck
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2019-02-08       Impact factor: 2.362

5.  Survivorship and clinical outcomes of proximal femoral replacement in non-neoplastic primary and revision total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review.

Authors:  Fabio Mancino; Vincenzo Di Matteo; Fabrizio Mocini; Giorgio Cacciola; Giuseppe Malerba; Carlo Perisano; Ivan De Martino
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2021-11-08       Impact factor: 2.562

6.  Megaprostheses for the revision of infected hip arthroplasties with severe bone loss.

Authors:  Nicola Logoluso; Francesca Alice Pedrini; Carlo Luca Romanò; Antonio Virgilio Pellegrini; Ilaria Morelli; Elena De Vecchi
Journal:  BMC Surg       Date:  2022-02-25       Impact factor: 2.102

7.  Periprosthetic Femoral Fracture With Broken Implant Insitu: - A Treatment Prospect.

Authors:  Chandra Prakash Pal; Pulkesh Singh; Deepak Kumar; Arpit Singh
Journal:  J Orthop Case Rep       Date:  2014 Jul-Sep

8.  Using personalized 3D printed Titanium sleeve-prosthetic composite for reconstruction of severe segmental bone loss of proximal femur in revision total hip arthroplasty: A case report.

Authors:  Xingshan Wang; Hui Xu; Ji Zhang
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2020-01       Impact factor: 1.889

9.  Proximal femoral reconstruction with modular megaprostheses in non-oncological patients.

Authors:  Kevin Döring; Klemens Vertesich; Luca Martelanz; Kevin Staats; Christoph Böhler; Christian Hipfl; Reinhard Windhager; Stephan Puchner
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2021-07-14       Impact factor: 3.075

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.