Literature DB >> 17891035

Complex revision total hip arthroplasty with modular stems at a mean of 14 years.

Joseph C McCarthy1, Jo-Ann Lee.   

Abstract

We retrospectively reviewed 87 patients (92 hips) who had revision hip surgery to determine whether a proximally coated, modular femoral component would remain stably fixed at long-term followup. Thirteen patients died and 12 patients were lost to followup leaving 62 patients (67 hips) available for review with minimum followup of 8 years (mean, 14 years; range, 8-17 years). Preoperative radiographs were reviewed using Paprosky's classification. Postoperative radiographs were reviewed for osteolysis, endosteal hypertrophy, cortical hypertrophy, distal pedestals, component breakage, and loosening. Thirty-seven hips underwent femoral allografting, 10 of which were proximal femurs. With revision as the endpoint the Kaplan-Meier survivorship (including deaths and loss to followup) was 60% at 14 years. Forty-seven of the 57 (82%) noncemented stems were bone ingrown. All had relative proximal bone preservation and 33 of 57 (58%) had bone hypertrophy in the diaphysis around zones 2 and 6. There were five aseptic failures (9%). Each of those was Paprosky Class IIIB or IV preoperatively. There were no long-term failures in Paprosky Class II or IIIA. The aseptic failures have been re-revised. This modular stem resulted in reliable fixation with relative preservation of proximal bone stock at this intermediate interval in complex revisions in Paprosky Class II and IIIA. Paprosky Class IIIB and IV defects may need additional component fixation options.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17891035     DOI: 10.1097/BLO.0b013e318159cb97

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.176


  8 in total

1.  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 2.  Management bone loss of the proximal femur in revision hip arthroplasty: Update on reconstructive options.

Authors:  Vasileios I Sakellariou; George C Babis
Journal:  World J Orthop       Date:  2014-11-18

3.  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

4.  Revision total hip arthroplasty with a porous-coated modular stem: 5 to 10 years follow-up.

Authors:  Dror Lakstein; David Backstein; Oleg Safir; Yona Kosashvili; Allan E Gross
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2009-06-16       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 5.  [Revision hip arthroplastiy of the hip joint. Revision of the femur: which implant is indicated when?].

Authors:  A Gruner; K-D Heller
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 1.087

6.  Medium-term outcomes of the S-ROM modular femoral stem in revision hip replacement.

Authors:  Jesús Moreta; Iker Uriarte; Xabier Foruria; Ane Loroño; Urko Agirre; Iñaki Jáuregui; José Luis Martínez-de Los Mozos
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2018-04-25

7.  Stem modularity alone is not effective in reducing dislocation rate in hip revision surgery.

Authors:  Dario Regis; Andrea Sandri; Pietro Bartolozzi
Journal:  J Orthop Traumatol       Date:  2009-11-18

8.  REVISION TOTAL HIP ARTHROPLASTY USING A MODULAR CEMENTLESS DISTAL FIXATION PROSTHESIS: THE ZMR(®) HIP SYSTEM. CLINICAL AND RADIOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS OF 30 CASES.

Authors:  Richard Prazeres Canella; Paulo Gilberto Cimbalista de Alencar; Gerson Gandhi Ganev; Luiz Fernando de Vincenzi
Journal:  Rev Bras Ortop       Date:  2015-11-17
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.