Literature DB >> 19847578

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

Corey J Richards1, Clive P Duncan, Bassam A Masri, Donald S Garbuz.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: For various reasons the tapered, fluted, modular titanium (TFMT) stem has become our component of choice over cylindrical, nonmodular cobalt chrome (CNCC) components for THA revision. We therefore asked whether the TFMT femoral components better achieved three important goals of revision arthroplasty than CNCC stems: (1) improving quality of life; (2) avoiding complications; and (3) preserving or restoring femoral bone stock. We compared patients undergoing femoral component revision hip arthroplasty with either a CNCC (N = 105) component or a TFMT (N = 95) component to determine if the increased use of TFMT components is justified. We retrospectively reviewed all patients undergoing revision total hip arthroplasty between January 2000 and March 2006. All eligible patients completed outcome questionnaires (WOMAC, SF-12, Oxford-12, UCLA Activity Score, and Satisfaction Scores). Radiographs were evaluated for loosening and preservation or restoration of the proximal femur host bone. The TFMT and CNCC cohorts were comparable with respect to age, gender, diagnosis, and comorbidities. The TFMT cohort had worse preoperative bone defects (65% Paprosky 3B and 4). The TFMT cohort had higher outcome scores (WOMAC pain, WOMAC stiffness, Oxford-12, and Satisfaction), fewer intraoperative fractures, and better restoration of the proximal femur host bone. Our data suggest the TFMT stem provided improved clinical outcomes (improved quality of life, decreased complications, and preservation of bone stock) than the CNCC stem. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 19847578      PMCID: PMC2806991          DOI: 10.1007/s11999-009-1145-7

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


  23 in total

1.  The long-term success of modular proximal fixation stems in revision total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Hugh U Cameron
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 4.757

2.  Distal ingrowth components.

Authors:  C Anderson Engh; Robert H Hopper; Charles A Engh
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 4.176

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

Authors:  Michael N Kang; James I Huddleston; Kathy Hwang; Susana Imrie; Stuart B Goodman
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2007-10-24       Impact factor: 4.757

4.  The accuracy and reproducibility of radiographic assessment of stress-shielding. A postmortem analysis.

Authors:  C A Engh; J P McAuley; C J Sychterz; M E Sacco; C A Engh
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 5.284

5.  Femoral revision with the Wagner SL revision stem : evaluation of one hundred and twenty-nine revisions followed for a mean of 4.8 years.

Authors:  P Böhm; O Bischel
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 5.284

6.  Association of hospital and surgeon volume of total hip replacement with functional status and satisfaction three years following surgery.

Authors:  Jeffrey N Katz; Charlotte B Phillips; John A Baron; Anne H Fossel; Nizar N Mahomed; Jane Barrett; Elizabeth A Lingard; William H Harris; Robert Poss; Robert A Lew; Edward Guadagnoli; Elizabeth A Wright; Elena Losina
Journal:  Arthritis Rheum       Date:  2003-02

7.  A comparison of the reliability and validity of bone stock loss classification systems used for revision hip surgery.

Authors:  Charles Gozzard; Ashley Blom; A Taylor; Evert Smith; Ian Learmonth
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 4.757

8.  Intraoperative fracture of the femur in revision total hip arthroplasty with a diaphyseal fitting stem.

Authors:  R M Dominic Meek; Donald S Garbuz; Bassam A Masri; Nelson V Greidanus; Clive P Duncan
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 5.284

9.  Minimal 11-year follow-up of extensively porous-coated stems in femoral revision total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Steven H Weeden; Wayne G Paprosky
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 4.757

10.  Revision total hip arthroplasty: the limits of fully coated stems.

Authors:  Scott M Sporer; Wayne G Paprosky
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 4.176

View more
  22 in total

1.  CORR Insights(®): Is There a Benefit to Modularity in 'Simpler' Femoral Revisions?

Authors:  C Anderson Engh
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-08-25       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  What is the survivorship of fully coated femoral components in revision hip arthroplasty?

Authors:  Paul F Lachiewicz; Elizabeth S Soileau
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  Cementless femoral revision in patients with a previous cemented prosthesis.

Authors:  Min Zeng; Jie Xie; Mingqing Li; Shaoru Lin; Yihe Hu
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2015-02-19       Impact factor: 3.075

4.  CORR Insights®: modular tapered implants for severe femoral bone loss in THA: reliable osseointegration but frequent complications.

Authors:  Curtis W Hartman
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-09-09       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Femoral revision for periprosthetic fracture in total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Luke G Menken; Jose A Rodriguez
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2019-12-14

6.  Tapered fluted titanium stems in the management of Vancouver B2 and B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures.

Authors:  Jacob T Munro; Donald S Garbuz; Bassam A Masri; Clive P Duncan
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  Nonmodular Tapered Fluted Titanium Stems Osseointegrate Reliably at Short Term in Revision THAs.

Authors:  Nemandra A Sandiford; Donald S Garbuz; Bassam A Masri; Clive P Duncan
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2016-09-26       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  Trunnionosis: the latest culprit in adverse reactions to metal debris following hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Ryan M Shulman; Michael G Zywiel; Rajiv Gandhi; J Roderick Davey; David C Salonen
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2014-08-12       Impact factor: 2.199

9.  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

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.