Literature DB >> 18280416

Early outcome of a modular femoral component in revision total hip arthroplasty.

Michael N Kang1, James I Huddleston, Kathy Hwang, Susana Imrie, Stuart B Goodman.   

Abstract

Forty-six hips in 42 patients underwent revision surgery with a modular femoral component (ZMR; Zimmer, Warsaw, Ind). Thirty-nine hips with 2 to 5 years' follow-up were evaluated radiographically and clinically by the Harris hip score and WOMAC pain/stiffness/function scores. The Harris hip score improved from 47.4 to 72.3 (P<.001), with significant improvements in the WOMAC pain/stiffness/function scores. The mean subsidence was 4.4 mm, with 5 hips demonstrating significant subsidence of more than 5 mm. Four hips required reoperation, 1 due to failure of the femoral component. No early complications were encountered regarding the modular junction. Modular, cementless, extensively porous, coated femoral components have demonstrated early clinical and radiographic success. Distal intramedullary fit helps ensure initial stability; proximal modularity further maximizes fit while optimizing hip offset and length.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 18280416     DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2007.03.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Arthroplasty        ISSN: 0883-5403            Impact factor:   4.757


  12 in total

1.  Femoral revision hip arthroplasty: a comparison of two stem designs.

Authors:  Corey J Richards; Clive P Duncan; Bassam A Masri; Donald S Garbuz
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Midterm results following uncemented, modular, fully porous coated stem used in revision total hip arthroplasty: Comparison of two stem systems.

Authors:  Konrad Sebastian Wronka; Peter Herman Johan Cnudde
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2016-07-02

3.  Management of severe femoral bone defect in revision total hip arthroplasty--a 236 hip, 6-14-year follow-up study.

Authors:  Guo-Qiang Zhang; Yan Wang; Ji-Ying Chen; Yong-Gang Zhou; Xiu-Tang Cao; Wei Chai; Ming Ni; Xiang Li
Journal:  J Huazhong Univ Sci Technolog Med Sci       Date:  2013-08-01

4.  A biomechanical assessment of modular and monoblock revision hip implants using FE analysis and strain gage measurements.

Authors:  Habiba Bougherara; Rad Zdero; Suraj Shah; Milan Miric; Marcello Papini; Paul Zalzal; Emil H Schemitsch
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2010-05-12       Impact factor: 2.359

5.  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

6.  Is There a Benefit to Modularity in 'Simpler' Femoral Revisions?

Authors:  James I Huddleston; Matthew W Tetreault; Michael Yu; Hany Bedair; Viktor J Hansen; Ho-Rim Choi; Stuart B Goodman; Scott M Sporer; Craig J Della Valle
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  High survival of modular tapered stems for proximal femoral bone defects at 5 to 10 years followup.

Authors:  Andrew P Van Houwelingen; Clive P Duncan; Bassam A Masri; Nelson V Greidanus; Donald S Garbuz
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  Mid-term outcomes of titanium modular neck femoral stems in revision total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Hervé Ouanezar; Thomas Jalaguier; Florent Franck; Vincent Pibarot; Hugo Bothorel; Mo Saffarini; Jean-Pierre Piton
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2019-03

9.  Distal fixation stems for revision of total hip replacement.

Authors:  Fernando Lopreite; Leonel Perez Alamino; Harold Simesen de Bielke; German Garabano; Hernán Del Sel
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2021-02-21

10.  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
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.