Literature DB >> 20824405

Quality of life following proximal femoral replacement using a modular system in revision THA.

Muhyeddine M Al-Taki1, Bassam A Masri, Clive P Duncan, Donald S Garbuz.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Proximal femoral replacement using a segmental modular system is one option for revision THA in the presence of severe bone loss or periprosthetic fracture. While many papers report function in these patients, they do not describe the quality of life. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We evaluated the quality of life in patients undergoing proximal femoral replacement using a segmental modular system for severe bone loss. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 63 patients undergoing complex revision THA using a modular replacement system for nonneoplastic conditions between April 1996 and June 2006. Average age was 73 years (range, 23-94 years). Twenty-one patients were lost to followup and six patients died before 2-year minimum followup. The remaining 36 patients were followed for an average of 3.2 years (range, 2-10 years). Study patients were matched by age-decade to a control group of patients undergoing conventional revision THA. At baseline, both groups were comparable with respect to age, comorbidities, and quality-of-life scores.
RESULTS: At last followup, the modular system group showed improvement in WOMAC function, WOMAC pain, Oxford score, and the SF-12 mental component. Compared to the control group, the modular system group scored lower on WOMAC function and Oxford scores, but there were no differences in any other scores.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severely compromised bone stock, a segmental modular replacement system can improve the quality of life. Special attention should be given to the stability of the hip intraoperatively and a constrained acetabular liner should be used when the risk of postoperative dislocation is high. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 20824405      PMCID: PMC3018217          DOI: 10.1007/s11999-010-1522-2

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


  28 in total

1.  Minimum 10-year-results of extensively porous-coated stems in revision hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  W G Paprosky; N V Greidanus; J Antoniou
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Structural proximal femoral allografts for failed total hip replacements: a minimum review of five years.

Authors:  F S Haddad; D S Garbuz; B A Masri; C P Duncan
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2000-08

Review 3.  Proximal femoral replacements with megaprostheses.

Authors:  Javad Parvizi; Franklin H Sim
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  The use of the Oxford hip and knee scores.

Authors:  D W Murray; R Fitzpatrick; K Rogers; H Pandit; D J Beard; A J Carr; J Dawson
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2007-08

5.  Radiological demarcation of cemented sockets in total hip replacement.

Authors:  J G DeLee; J Charnley
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1976 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  The long-term results of low-friction arthroplasty of the hip performed as a primary intervention.

Authors:  J Charnley
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1972-02

7.  "Modes of failure" of cemented stem-type femoral components: a radiographic analysis of loosening.

Authors:  T A Gruen; G M McNeice; H C Amstutz
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1979-06       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  Dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty : an analysis of risk factors and treatment options.

Authors:  Gregory M Alberton; Whitney A High; Bernard F Morrey
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 5.284

9.  Treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures following total hip arthroplasty with femoral component revision.

Authors:  Bryan D Springer; Daniel J Berry; David G Lewallen
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 5.284

10.  Treatment of Vancouver B3 periprosthetic femur fractures with a fluted tapered stem.

Authors:  Daniel J Berry
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 4.176

View more
  13 in total

1.  Megaprosthesis in distal femur non-unions in elderly patients-experience from twenty-four cases: a letter to editor.

Authors:  Raju Vaishya; Abhishek Vaish
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2019-08-30       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 2.  [Strategies for stem revision : Surgery planning, implant removal and reimplantation].

Authors:  Sebastian Hardt; Lukas Schönnagel; Christian Hipfl
Journal:  Orthopadie (Heidelb)       Date:  2022-07-08

3.  The Performances of Conventional Titanium and Silver-Coated Megaprostheses in Non-oncological and Post-oncological Patients: An Analysis of Infection Failures in 142 Patients.

Authors:  Federico Sacchetti; Raphael Kilian; Francesco Muratori; Stephane Cherix; Lorenzo Foschi; Riccardo Morganti; Domenico Andrea Campanacci; Rodolfo Capanna
Journal:  Arch Bone Jt Surg       Date:  2022-05

4.  Novel Cemented Technique for Trochanteric Fixation and Reconstruction of the Abductor Mechanism in Proximal and Total Femoral Arthroplasty: An Observational Study.

Authors:  Brian T Muffly; Kyle T Boden; Cale A Jacobs; Patrick W O'Donnell; Stephen T Duncan
Journal:  Arthroplast Today       Date:  2021-08-09

5.  Reconstructed the bone stock after femoral bone loss in Vancouver B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures using cortical strut allograft and impacted cancellous allograft.

Authors:  Donghai Li; Qinsheng Hu; Pengde Kang; Jing Yang; Zongke Zhou; Bin Shen; Fuxing Pei
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2018-06-04       Impact factor: 3.075

6.  Modular Endoprostheses for Nonneoplastic Conditions: Midterm Complications and Survival.

Authors:  Marco De Gori; Guido Scoccianti; Filippo Frenos; Leonardo Bettini; Filippo Familiari; Giorgio Gasparini; Giovanni Beltrami; Pierluigi Cuomo; Pietro De Biase; Rodolfo Capanna
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2016-12-05       Impact factor: 3.411

7.  Two stage revision with a proximal femur replacement.

Authors:  Ralf Dieckmann; Tom Schmidt-Braekling; Georg Gosheger; Christoph Theil; Jendrik Hardes; Burkhard Moellenbeck
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2019-02-08       Impact factor: 2.362

8.  "Purse-String" Capsular Closure for Decreasing Dislocation Rates in Proximal Femur Replacements.

Authors:  Thomas A Novack; Jay N Patel; Tyler Hoskins; Charles Long; Christopher Mazzei; David Goyette; James C Wittig
Journal:  J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev       Date:  2020-11-10

9.  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

10.  Proximal femoral reconstruction with modular megaprostheses in non-oncological patients.

Authors:  Kevin Döring; Klemens Vertesich; Luca Martelanz; Kevin Staats; Christoph Böhler; Christian Hipfl; Reinhard Windhager; Stephan Puchner
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2021-07-14       Impact factor: 3.075

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.