Literature DB >> 23846608

Are short fully coated stems adequate for "simple" femoral revisions?

Matthew W Tetreault1, Sanjai K Shukla, Paul H Yi, Scott M Sporer, Craig J Della Valle.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Many studies suggest long femoral components should be used in revision THA. However, longer stems are more difficult to insert and reduce femoral bone stock for future revisions. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We investigated (1) how frequently a short (≤ 160-mm or primary-length) fully porous-coated stem could be utilized for Paprosky Type I to IIIA femoral defects, (2) how often the tip of the old stem or cement mantle was bypassed by the revision implant, (3) Harris hip scores, radiographic signs of osseointegration, and revision frequency, and (4) complications associated with these reconstructions.
METHODS: Two surgeons performed 277 femoral revisions graded as Paprosky Types I to IIIA between 2004 and 2009. When femoral canal diameter was less than 18 mm, these surgeons generally used the shortest stem capable of achieving a minimum of 4 cm of scratch fit in the femoral isthmus. Patients were evaluated clinically using the Harris hip score and radiographically for component loosening and to determine whether the revision component bypassed the prior stem tip or cement mantle.
RESULTS: A short stem was utilized in 144 of the 277 revisions (52%). In 113 (78%), the revision femoral component did not bypass the tip of the prior stem or cement mantle. The Harris hip score improved (p < 0.001) from 36 preoperatively to 76 at a mean of 4 years (range, 2-8 years). Twelve stems required repeat revision including six (4.9%) for failed ingrowth. Complications included four intraoperative fractures, three postoperative femoral fractures, one cortical perforation, and eight dislocations.
CONCLUSIONS: Primary-length extensively coated stems provided reliable fixation for ½ of our Paprosky Type I to IIIA femoral revisions. When considering the use of such a component, the revision surgeon should take into account a small risk of failed osseointegration and technical challenges associated with this technique.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 23846608      PMCID: PMC3890204          DOI: 10.1007/s11999-013-3167-4

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


  26 in total

1.  Distal ingrowth components.

Authors:  C Anderson Engh; Robert H Hopper; Charles A Engh
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Femoral component revision using an uncemented, proximally coated, long-stem prosthesis.

Authors:  A L Malkani; D G Lewallen; M E Cabanela; S L Wallrichs
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  1996-06       Impact factor: 4.757

3.  Prevalence of primary and revision total hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 1990 through 2002.

Authors:  Steven Kurtz; Fionna Mowat; Kevin Ong; Nathan Chan; Edmund Lau; Michael Halpern
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 5.284

4.  Porous-coated hip replacement. The factors governing bone ingrowth, stress shielding, and clinical results.

Authors:  C A Engh; J D Bobyn; A H Glassman
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1987-01

5.  The use of abduction bracing for the prevention of early postoperative dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Trevor G Murray; Nathan G Wetters; Mario Moric; Scott M Sporer; Wayne G Paprosky; Craig J Della Valle
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2012-05-17       Impact factor: 4.757

Review 6.  Fractures of the femur after hip replacement.

Authors:  C P Duncan; B A Masri
Journal:  Instr Course Lect       Date:  1995

7.  Femoral fixation in the face of considerable bone loss: cylindrical and extensively coated femoral components.

Authors:  James P McAuley; C Anderson Engh
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  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

9.  Revision total hip arthroplasty: the limits of fully coated stems.

Authors:  Scott M Sporer; Wayne G Paprosky
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  Stem diameter and rotational stability in revision total hip arthroplasty: a biomechanical analysis.

Authors:  R Michael Meneghini; Nadim J Hallab; Richard A Berger; Joshua J Jacobs; Wayne G Paprosky; Aaron G Rosenberg
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2006-10-02       Impact factor: 2.359

View more
  7 in total

1.  Long-term survivorship of a monoblock long cementless stem in revision total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Yannick Herry; Anthony Viste; Hugo Bothorel; Romain Desmarchelier; Michel-Henri Fessy
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2018-10-01       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 2.  Femoral revision with primary cementless stems: a systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Luca Cavagnaro; Matteo Formica; Marco Basso; Andrea Zanirato; Stefano Divano; Lamberto Felli
Journal:  Musculoskelet Surg       Date:  2017-07-01

3.  Revision hip arthroplasty with a rectangular tapered cementless stem: a retrospective study of the SLR-Plus stem at a mean follow-up of 4.1 years.

Authors:  Iker Uriarte; Jesús Moreta; Laura Cortés; Lucía Bernuy; Urko Aguirre; José Luis Martínez de Los Mozos
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2019-10-15

4.  Variation of three-dimensional femoral bowing and its relation to physical status and bone mineral density: a study with CT.

Authors:  Hiroshi Shimosawa; Takeo Nagura; Kengo Harato; Shu Kobayashi; Masaya Nakamura; Morio Matsumoto; Yasuo Niki
Journal:  Surg Radiol Anat       Date:  2019-09-13       Impact factor: 1.246

5.  Is There a Benefit to Modularity in 'Simpler' Femoral Revisions?

Authors:  James I Huddleston; Matthew W Tetreault; Michael Yu; Hany Bedair; Viktor J Hansen; Ho-Rim Choi; Stuart B Goodman; Scott M Sporer; Craig J Della Valle
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty with Primary Stem or Full-Porous-Coated Long Stem for Aseptic Femoral Component Loosening: A Matched-Pair Study.

Authors:  Meng-Huan Tsai; Chun-Chieh Chen; Chih-Hsiang Chang; Yuhan Chang; Pang-Hsin Hsieh; Chih-Chien Hu
Journal:  Orthop Res Rev       Date:  2022-02-15

7.  Downsizing in total hip arthroplasty. A short stem as a revision implant.

Authors:  Marcel Coutandin; Yama Afghanyar; Philipp Rehbein; Jens Dargel; Philipp Drees; Karl Philipp Kutzner
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2021-09-28       Impact factor: 1.087

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.