AIM: Today, megaendoprostheses--which were originally designed for osseous defect reconstructions in tumour surgery--are being more frequently used for extensive bone defects in revision arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to assess the complication rate and the functional results associated with megaendoprosthesis reconstruction of the proximal femur in a non-oncological patient group. METHOD: 28 patients (average age 72; SD 10 years) with a proximal femur replacement were retrospectively (mean follow-up 43 months) evaluated regarding the complication rate. The Harris hip score was used to assess the outcome. The revision surgery was indicated because of large bone defects caused by implant-associated infection (n = 16), periprosthetic fracture (n = 8) or aseptic loosening (n = 4). RESULTS: Overall 8 patients (28.6 %) had to undergo 1 (n = 5) or more (2 n = 2, 4 n = 1) revision surgeries because of dislocation (n = 4), aseptic loosening of the stem (n = 2) and periprosthetic infection (n = 2). A significant pain relief could be achieved from on average 9.0 to 38.7 (according to the Harris hip score). All patients could be mobilised postoperatively, but walking aids were necessary for the majority of patients. CONCLUSION: A proximal femur replacement in revision arthroplasty should be regarded as a salvage procedure for restoration of extremity function. With this procedure it is possible to achieve a--limited--walking ability for patients who were immobilised preoperatively in most cases. Furthermore, pain relief can be achieved. However, the--mostly multimorbid--patients must be informed preoperatively about restrictions in daily life in order to avoid exorbitant expectations. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart , New York.
AIM: Today, megaendoprostheses--which were originally designed for osseous defect reconstructions in tumour surgery--are being more frequently used for extensive bone defects in revision arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to assess the complication rate and the functional results associated with megaendoprosthesis reconstruction of the proximal femur in a non-oncological patient group. METHOD: 28 patients (average age 72; SD 10 years) with a proximal femur replacement were retrospectively (mean follow-up 43 months) evaluated regarding the complication rate. The Harris hip score was used to assess the outcome. The revision surgery was indicated because of large bone defects caused by implant-associated infection (n = 16), periprosthetic fracture (n = 8) or aseptic loosening (n = 4). RESULTS: Overall 8 patients (28.6 %) had to undergo 1 (n = 5) or more (2 n = 2, 4 n = 1) revision surgeries because of dislocation (n = 4), aseptic loosening of the stem (n = 2) and periprosthetic infection (n = 2). A significant pain relief could be achieved from on average 9.0 to 38.7 (according to the Harris hip score). All patients could be mobilised postoperatively, but walking aids were necessary for the majority of patients. CONCLUSION: A proximal femur replacement in revision arthroplasty should be regarded as a salvage procedure for restoration of extremity function. With this procedure it is possible to achieve a--limited--walking ability for patients who were immobilised preoperatively in most cases. Furthermore, pain relief can be achieved. However, the--mostly multimorbid--patients must be informed preoperatively about restrictions in daily life in order to avoid exorbitant expectations. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart , New York.
Authors: J Hardes; H Ahrens; M Nottrott; R Dieckmann; G Gosheger; M-P Henrichs; A Streitbürger Journal: Oper Orthop Traumatol Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 1.154
Authors: Moritz von Salis-Soglio; Mohamed Ghanem; Christian Lycke; Andreas Roth; Georg Osterhoff Journal: J Orthop Surg Res Date: 2021-08-18 Impact factor: 2.359
Authors: Dirk Zajonz; Almut Zieme; Torsten Prietzel; Michael Moche; Solveig Tiepoldt; Andreas Roth; Christoph Josten; Georg Freiherr von Salis-Soglio; Christoph-E Heyde; Mohamed Ghanem Journal: Patient Saf Surg Date: 2016-02-09
Authors: Christoph Theil; Jan Schwarze; Georg Gosheger; Burkhard Moellenbeck; Kristian Nikolaus Schneider; Niklas Deventer; Sebastian Klingebiel; George Grammatopoulos; Friedrich Boettner; Tom Schmidt-Braekling Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-01-11 Impact factor: 6.639