Literature DB >> 20379815

The Modular Universal Tumour And Revision System (MUTARS®) in endoprosthetic revision surgery.

Carsten Gebert1, Martin Wessling, Christian Götze, Georg Gosheger, Jendrik Hardes.   

Abstract

The aim of this study was to present the clinical and functional results of revision surgery after failed hip endoprostheses using the Modular Universal Tumour And Revision System (MUTARS®). Functional results of the hip endoprostheses were recorded by applying the Harris hip score. The extent of the presurgical radiological bone defect was measured according to the classification system of the German orthopaedic association (DGOOC). Indications for revision surgery on 45 patients (21 female, 24 male) were aseptic loosening (19 patients), infection (16 patients), or periprosthetic fracture (Vancouver classification B2, B3 and C, in nine patients). Revision surgery was performed after 8.6 years on average (min. 0.6; max. 14.25 years). Large defects of the proximal femur (80% medial or lateral diaphysis; 20% meta-diaphysis according to DGOOC classification) were adequately reconstructed. The average follow-up was 38.6 months. Complications occurred in eight patients: one luxation, two aseptic loosenings, and five reinfections were diagnosed. The Harris hip score (presurgical 30; postsurgical 78) showed significant improvement after revision surgery. Regarding the extent of the patients' bone defects, good functional results were achieved. The comparatively low number of luxations and loosenings is due to the high modularity of the prosthesis with arbitrary antetorsion in the hip joint. However, high reinfection rates in mega-implants still constitute a problem and should be the subject of further studies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20379815      PMCID: PMC2989089          DOI: 10.1007/s00264-010-1007-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Orthop        ISSN: 0341-2695            Impact factor:   3.075


  29 in total

1.  Early failure of revision total hip arthroplasty with cemented precoated femoral components: comparison with uncemented components at 2 to 8 years.

Authors:  G A Schmale; P F Lachiewicz; S S Kelley
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 4.757

2.  [Mutars--a modular tumor- and revision system. Experiences at the Münster Tumor Center].

Authors:  G Gosheger; W Winkelmann
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 1.087

3.  Revision of failed total hip arthroplasty with a proximal femoral modular cemented stem.

Authors:  S A Crawford; P D Siney; B M Wroblewski
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2000-07

Review 4.  A modular femoral implant for uncemented stem revision in THR.

Authors:  D C Wirtz; K D Heller; U Holzwarth; C Siebert; R P Pitto; G Zeiler; B A Blencke; R Forst
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 3.075

5.  Structural allograft and cemented long-stem prosthesis for complex revision hip arthroplasty: use of a trochanteric claw plate improves final hip function.

Authors:  Laurent Vastel; Camille Thevenin Lemoine; Marcel Kerboull; Jean Pierre Courpied
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2007-02-14       Impact factor: 3.075

6.  Femoral impaction bone allografting with an Exeter cemented collarless, polished, tapered stem in revision hip replacement: a mean follow-up of 10.5 years.

Authors:  P J Wraighte; P W Howard
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2008-08

7.  A technique for the fabrication of a reinforced moulded articulating cement spacer in two-stage revision total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Matthew Kent; Rajesh Rachha; Manoj Sood
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2009-08-20       Impact factor: 3.075

8.  One-stage cementless revision arthroplasty for infected hip replacements.

Authors:  Jeong Joon Yoo; Young Sam Kwon; Kyung-Hoi Koo; Kang Sup Yoon; Young-Min Kim; Hee Joong Kim
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2008-08-13       Impact factor: 3.075

9.  Total hip arthroplasties: what are the reasons for revision?

Authors:  Slif D Ulrich; Thorsten M Seyler; Derek Bennett; Ronald E Delanois; Khaled J Saleh; Issada Thongtrangan; Michael Kuskowski; Edward Y Cheng; Peter F Sharkey; Javad Parvizi; James B Stiehl; Michael A Mont
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2007-04-19       Impact factor: 3.075

10.  Revision of total hip arthroplasty using the Kerboull and KT plates.

Authors:  Tomonori Baba; Katsuo Shitoto
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2009-05-07       Impact factor: 3.075

View more
  11 in total

Review 1.  [New surgical treatment options for bone tumors].

Authors:  D Andreou; M P Henrichs; G Gosheger; M Nottrott; A Streitbürger; J Hardes
Journal:  Pathologe       Date:  2014-11       Impact factor: 1.011

2.  What was the survival of megaprostheses in lower limb reconstructions after tumor resections?

Authors:  Rodolfo Capanna; Guido Scoccianti; Filippo Frenos; Antonio Vilardi; Giovanni Beltrami; Domenico Andrea Campanacci
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  Two-stage hip revision arthroplasty with a hexagonal modular cementless stem in cases of periprosthetic infection.

Authors:  Ralf Dieckmann; Dino Schulz; Georg Gosheger; Karsten Becker; Kiriakos Daniilidis; Arne Streitbürger; Jendrik Hardes; Steffen Hoell
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2014-11-26       Impact factor: 2.362

4.  Novel concept of a modular hip implant could contribute to less implant failure in THA: a hypothesis.

Authors:  Ronny Grunert; Stefan Schleifenbaum; Robert Möbius; Michael Kopper; Christian Rotsch; Welf-Guntram Drossel; Niels Hammer; Torsten Prietzel
Journal:  Patient Saf Surg       Date:  2018-01-08

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.  Proximal femoral replacement in non-neoplastic revision hip arthroplasty : five-year results.

Authors:  Kevin Syam; P Nithin Unnikrishnan; Naveen K Lokikere; William Wilson-Theaker; Anil Gambhir; Nikhil Shah; Martyn Porter
Journal:  Bone Jt Open       Date:  2022-03

8.  Treatment of metastatic lesions localized in the acetabulum.

Authors:  Grzegorz Guzik
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2016-04-28       Impact factor: 2.359

9.  What Are the Long-term Results of MUTARS® Modular Endoprostheses for Reconstruction of Tumor Resection of the Distal Femur and Proximal Tibia?

Authors:  Michaël P A Bus; Michiel A J van de Sande; Marta Fiocco; Gerard R Schaap; Jos A M Bramer; P D Sander Dijkstra
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  Two-stage Revision for Salmonella-infected Total Hip Replacement, Complicated by a Periprosthetic Fracture.

Authors:  Mohammad Zeeshan Nasser; Nikhil Sharma; Peter Shewell
Journal:  J Orthop Case Rep       Date:  2020-12
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.