Literature DB >> 23955817

Influence of stem design on the primary stability of megaprostheses of the proximal femur.

Stefan Kinkel1, Jan Dennis Graage, Jan Philippe Kretzer, Eike Jakubowitz, Jan Nadorf.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Extended bone defects of the proximal femur can be reconstructed by megaprostheses for which aseptic loosening constitutes one of the major failure modes. The basic requirement for long-term success of endoprostheses is primary stability. We therefore assessed whether sufficient primary stability can be achieved by four different megaprostheses in a standardised bone defect of the proximal femur and whether their different design leads to different fixation patterns.
METHODS: Four different designs of proximal femoral replacements were implanted into 16 Sawbones® after preparing segmental bone defects (AAOS type II). Primary rotational stability was analysed by application of a cyclic torque of ±7 Nm and measuring the relative micromotions between bone and implant at different levels. The main fixation zones and differences of fixation patterns of the stem designs were determined by an analysis of variance.
RESULTS: All four implants exhibited micromotions below 150 μm, indicating adequate primary stability. Lowest micromotions for all designs were located near the femoral isthmus. The extent of primary stability and the global implant fixation pattern differed considerably and could be related to the different design concepts.
CONCLUSIONS: All megaprostheses studied provided sufficient primary stability if the fixation conditions of the femoral isthmus were intact. The design characteristics of the different stems largely determined the extent of primary stability and fixation pattern. Understanding these different fixation types could help the surgeon to choose the most suitable implant if the fixation conditions in the isthmus are compromised.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23955817      PMCID: PMC3779559          DOI: 10.1007/s00264-013-2052-9

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


  23 in total

1.  Poor bone quality or hip structure as risk factors affecting survival of total-hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  S Kobayashi; N Saito; H Horiuchi; R Iorio; K Takaoka
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2000-04-29       Impact factor: 79.321

2.  Long-term followup of uncemented tumor endoprostheses for the lower extremity.

Authors:  F Mittermayer; P Krepler; M Dominkus; E Schwameis; M Sluga; H Heinzl; R Kotz
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  Modular megaprosthesis for proximal femoral tumors.

Authors:  I Ilyas; R Pant; A Kurar; P G Moreau; D A Younge
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2002-03-08       Impact factor: 3.075

4.  The effect of multifilaments and monofilaments on cementless femoral revision hip components: an experimental study.

Authors:  Eike Jakubowitz; Stefan Kinkel; Jan Nadorf; Christian Heisel; J Philippe Kretzer; Marc N Thomsen
Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)       Date:  2010-12-13       Impact factor: 2.063

5.  Endoprosthetic reconstruction in 250 patients with sarcoma.

Authors:  Georg Gosheger; Carsten Gebert; Helmut Ahrens; Arne Streitbuerger; Winfried Winkelmann; Jendrik Hardes
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 6.  Megaprostheses for the treatment of malignant bone tumours of the lower limbs.

Authors:  Christian Heisel; Stefan Kinkel; Ludger Bernd; Volker Ewerbeck
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2006-09-12       Impact factor: 3.075

7.  Primary rotational stability of cylindrical and conical revision hip stems as a function of femoral bone defects: an in vitro comparison.

Authors:  Eike Jakubowitz; Rudi G Bitsch; Christian Heisel; Christoph Lee; Jan P Kretzer; Marc N Thomsen
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2008-09-21       Impact factor: 2.712

Review 8.  Failure mode classification for tumor endoprostheses: retrospective review of five institutions and a literature review.

Authors:  Eric R Henderson; John S Groundland; Elisa Pala; Jeremy A Dennis; Rebecca Wooten; David Cheong; Reinhard Windhager; Rainer I Kotz; Mario Mercuri; Philipp T Funovics; Francis J Hornicek; H Thomas Temple; Pietro Ruggieri; G Douglas Letson
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2011-03-02       Impact factor: 5.284

9.  [Proximal femur replacement in revision arthroplasty].

Authors:  J Hardes; T Budny; G Hauschild; M Balke; A Streitbürger; R Dieckmann; G Gosheger; H Ahrens
Journal:  Z Orthop Unfall       Date:  2009-06-30       Impact factor: 0.923

10.  Factors affecting aseptic loosening of 4750 total hip arthroplasties: multivariate survival analysis.

Authors:  Barbara Bordini; Susanna Stea; Manuela De Clerico; Sergio Strazzari; Antonio Sasdelli; Aldo Toni
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2007-07-24       Impact factor: 2.362

View more
  6 in total

1.  Nickel-titanium shape memory alloy embracing fixator benefits the determination of the implantation angle of prosthesis stem in tumor-type artificial joint replacement.

Authors:  Yang Wang; Hongrui Wang; Hongyue Zhang; Wei Miao; Jilu Liu; Shuogui Xu
Journal:  Am J Transl Res       Date:  2022-07-15       Impact factor: 3.940

2.  Primary rotational stability of various megaprostheses in a biomechanical sawbone model with proximal femoral defects extending to the isthmus.

Authors:  Stefan Kinkel; Jan Nadorf; Jan Dennis Graage; Eike Jakubowitz; Jan Philippe Kretzer
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-06-01       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Tibial revision knee arthroplasty with metaphyseal sleeves: The effect of stems on implant fixation and bone flexibility.

Authors:  Jan Nadorf; Stefan Kinkel; Simone Gantz; Eike Jakubowitz; J Philippe Kretzer
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-05-08       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Cementless curved endoprosthesis stem for distal femoral reconstruction in a Chinese population: a combined anatomical & biomechanical study.

Authors:  Xin Hu; Minxun Lu; Yitian Wang; Yang Wen; Linyun Tan; Guifeng Du; Yong Zhou; Yi Luo; Li Min; Chongqi Tu
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2022-09-08       Impact factor: 2.562

5.  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

6.  Uncemented, curved, short endoprosthesis stem for distal femoral reconstruction: early follow-up outcomes.

Authors:  Minxun Lu; Jie Wang; Cong Xiao; Fan Tang; Li Min; Yong Zhou; Wenli Zhang; Chongqi Tu
Journal:  World J Surg Oncol       Date:  2018-09-10       Impact factor: 2.754

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.