INTRODUCTION: Secondary subsidence of a revision femoral stem is often a negative predictive sign for successful osseointegration and perfect long-term stability. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective study in a series of 183 revision total hip replacements between 1996 and 2000 to evaluate the importance and risk factors of secondary subsidence with a cementless press-fit design femoral stem as well as this subsidence's consequences to osseointegration. RESULTS: Secondary subsidence did not occur in 80 cases (53%), was between 0 and 4mm in 41 cases (27%); between 5 and 10mm in 17 cases (12%) and was greater than 10mm in 12 cases (8%). Mean subsidence of all patients was 3mm (0-30). There was a statistically significant negative correlation between subsidence and the quality of osseointegration (P=0.03). There was no significant relationship between component diameter and stem subsidence (P=0.9). The presence of preoperative bone deficiencies did not increase the risk of secondary subsidence (P=0.2). CONCLUSION: In the case of revision with press-fit stems, the importance of secondary subsidence should not be overestimated, because it usually does not negatively affect satisfactory osseointegration.
INTRODUCTION: Secondary subsidence of a revision femoral stem is often a negative predictive sign for successful osseointegration and perfect long-term stability. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective study in a series of 183 revision total hip replacements between 1996 and 2000 to evaluate the importance and risk factors of secondary subsidence with a cementless press-fit design femoral stem as well as this subsidence's consequences to osseointegration. RESULTS: Secondary subsidence did not occur in 80 cases (53%), was between 0 and 4mm in 41 cases (27%); between 5 and 10mm in 17 cases (12%) and was greater than 10mm in 12 cases (8%). Mean subsidence of all patients was 3mm (0-30). There was a statistically significant negative correlation between subsidence and the quality of osseointegration (P=0.03). There was no significant relationship between component diameter and stem subsidence (P=0.9). The presence of preoperative bone deficiencies did not increase the risk of secondary subsidence (P=0.2). CONCLUSION: In the case of revision with press-fit stems, the importance of secondary subsidence should not be overestimated, because it usually does not negatively affect satisfactory osseointegration.
Authors: Olivier Roche; Julien Girard; François Canovas; Henri Migaud; François Bonnomet; Mathias Goldschild; Pierre Le Béguec Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2015-11-17 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Kevin Lawson; Katherine L Hwang; Spencer Montgomery; Derek F Amanatullah; James I Huddleston; William J Maloney; Stuart B Goodman Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2022-10-12 Impact factor: 3.479
Authors: Michael Rutherford; Riaz J K Khan; Daniel P Fick; Samantha Haebich; Oscar Nivbrant; Thomas Kozak Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2019-01-31 Impact factor: 3.075