Literature DB >> 21701874

Revision hip arthroplasty using a cementless modular tapered stem.

Christophe Pattyn1, Alexander Mulliez, René Verdonk, Emmanuel Audenaert.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Here we report the short-term clinical and radiological results of the Profemur®-R cementless modular revision stem.
METHODS: Between June 2002 and May 2006, 68 revision hip arthroplasties were consecutively performed using this stem. Survival at a mean follow-up of 5.2 years was 94%. According to the Paprosky classification, the femoral defect was classified as type 1 in 39 hips (57.3%), type 2 in 18 hips (26.5%), type 3A in ten hips (14.7%) and type 3B in one hip (1.5%).
RESULTS: The Harris Hip Score was 49.57 before surgery and averaged 78.28 at the latest follow-up. The Merle d'Aubigne score improved from 9.15 preoperatively to 14.30 postoperatively. Stem stability rated according to the Agora Roentgenographic Assessment (ARA) scoring system averaged 5.22, suggesting a high likelihood of a durable implant.
CONCLUSION: The revision prosthesis examined in this study can be considered a viable and useful option in revision hip arthroplasty, even in patients with bony femoral defects.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21701874      PMCID: PMC3251668          DOI: 10.1007/s00264-011-1299-2

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


  27 in total

1.  The femur in revision total hip arthroplasty evaluation and classification.

Authors:  Craig J Della Valle; Wayne G Paprosky
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Roentgenographic assessment of the biologic fixation of porous-surfaced femoral components.

Authors:  C A Engh; P Massin; K E Suthers
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1990-08       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  Long-term results of revision total hip replacement. A follow-up report.

Authors:  P M Pellicci; P D Wilson; C B Sledge; E A Salvati; C S Ranawat; R Poss; J J Callaghan
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1985-04       Impact factor: 5.284

4.  Survivorship of uncemented proximally porous-coated femoral components.

Authors:  D J Berry; W S Harmsen; D Ilstrup; D G Lewallen; M E Cabanela
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1995-10       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Revision total hip arthroplasty with use of so-called second-generation cementing techniques for aseptic loosening of the femoral component. A fifteen-year-average follow-up study.

Authors:  W F Mulroy; W H Harris
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1996-03       Impact factor: 5.284

6.  The 3-6-year results of a modular noncemented low-bending stiffness hip implant. A preliminary study.

Authors:  H U Cameron
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  1993-06       Impact factor: 4.757

7.  Osseointegration of titanium implants in total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  J W McCutchen; J P Collier; M B Mayor
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1990-12       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  A modular distal fixation option for proximal bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty: a 2- to 6-year follow-up study.

Authors:  Louis M Kwong; A John Miller; Phillipp Lubinus
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 4.757

9.  Femoral revision hip arthroplasty with uncemented, porous-coated stems.

Authors:  J R Moreland; M L Bernstein
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1995-10       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  Results of cemented femoral revision total hip arthroplasty using improved cementing techniques.

Authors:  R P Katz; J J Callaghan; P M Sullivan; R C Johnston
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1995-10       Impact factor: 4.176

View more
  7 in total

1.  Long-term survivorship and complication rate comparison of a cementless modular stem and cementless fixed neck stems for primary total hip replacement.

Authors:  David A Fitch; Cristina Ancarani; Barbara Bordini
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2015-07-09       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 2.  Systematic review on outcomes of acetabular revisions with highly-porous metals.

Authors:  Samik Banerjee; Kimona Issa; Bhaveen H Kapadia; Robert Pivec; Harpal S Khanuja; Michael A Mont
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2013-11-01       Impact factor: 3.075

3.  Letter to the Editor: Is There a Benefit to Modularity in 'Simpler' Femoral Revisions?

Authors:  Bernd Fink
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2016-07-21       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  Technical Note for Transfemoral Implantation of Tapered Revision Stems. The Advantage to Stay Short.

Authors:  Bernd Fink
Journal:  Arthroplast Today       Date:  2021-04-24

5.  Revision of hip resurfacing arthroplasty with a bone-conserving short-stem implant: a case report and review of the literature.

Authors:  Florian Schmidutz; Lorenz Wanke-Jellinek; Volkmar Jansson; Andreas Fottner; Farhad Mazoochian
Journal:  J Med Case Rep       Date:  2012-08-20

6.  Mid-term results of previously cemented hip arthroplasties revised with uncemented modular femoral components: a retrospective study.

Authors:  Tahir Mutlu Duymus; Zafer Solak; Yusuf Ozturkmen; Ibrahim Azboy; Serhat Mutlu; Mustafa Caniklioglu
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2015-08-14       Impact factor: 2.359

7.  Comparison of modular and nonmodular tapered fluted titanium stems in femoral revision hip arthroplasty: a minimum 6-year follow-up study.

Authors:  Shuo Feng; Yu Zhang; Yu-Hang Bao; Zhi Yang; Guo-Chun Zha; Xiang-Yang Chen
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-08-13       Impact factor: 4.379

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.