A Hillmann1, I Ipach. 1. Orthopädische Klinik, Klinikum Ingolstadt, Krumenauerstraße 25, 85049, Ingolstadt, Deutschland, axel.hillmann@klinikum-ingolstadt.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Due to demographic aging, an increasing number of revision arthroplasty procedures is expected during upcoming years. While the use of a megaprosthesis for bone reconstruction after tumor resection is gold standard, this type of prosthesis still meets with reservation in the field of revision arthroplasty because of numerous risk factors. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this article is to present the importance of modular megaprostheses in revision arthroplasty, taking into consideration the risks of periprosthetic infection, aseptic loosening, material failure, and hip dislocation. RESULTS: Because of improvements in the field of megaprostheses during the last 30 years, the risks after implantation of this type of prosthesis have significantly decreased. The risk of periprosthetic infection has been reduced about 1/3 by the use of silver surface coating. Improvements in stem design, cement technique, and the additional use of locking screws have minimized the risk of aseptic loosening. Improvements in material composition have reduced the risk of material failure. The risk of hip dislocation could also be minimized by careful tissue preparation and appropriate suture technique. CONCLUSION: There is no need for the conservative use of megaprostheses in revision arthroplasty. There are many benefits in the use of megaprostheses in multimorbid patients (i.e., reduced operating time, the possibility of early full weight bearing, and a reduced risk of periprosthetic infection by the use of silver surface coating) instead of complex bone reconstruction during revision arthroplasty.
BACKGROUND: Due to demographic aging, an increasing number of revision arthroplasty procedures is expected during upcoming years. While the use of a megaprosthesis for bone reconstruction after tumor resection is gold standard, this type of prosthesis still meets with reservation in the field of revision arthroplasty because of numerous risk factors. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this article is to present the importance of modular megaprostheses in revision arthroplasty, taking into consideration the risks of periprosthetic infection, aseptic loosening, material failure, and hip dislocation. RESULTS: Because of improvements in the field of megaprostheses during the last 30 years, the risks after implantation of this type of prosthesis have significantly decreased. The risk of periprosthetic infection has been reduced about 1/3 by the use of silver surface coating. Improvements in stem design, cement technique, and the additional use of locking screws have minimized the risk of aseptic loosening. Improvements in material composition have reduced the risk of material failure. The risk of hip dislocation could also be minimized by careful tissue preparation and appropriate suture technique. CONCLUSION: There is no need for the conservative use of megaprostheses in revision arthroplasty. There are many benefits in the use of megaprostheses in multimorbid patients (i.e., reduced operating time, the possibility of early full weight bearing, and a reduced risk of periprosthetic infection by the use of silver surface coating) instead of complex bone reconstruction during revision arthroplasty.
Authors: J Hardes; C Gebert; A Schwappach; H Ahrens; A Streitburger; W Winkelmann; G Gosheger Journal: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg Date: 2006-04-21 Impact factor: 3.067
Authors: O Gøthesen; B Espehaug; L Havelin; G Petursson; S Lygre; P Ellison; G Hallan; O Furnes Journal: Bone Joint J Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 5.082
Authors: J Hardes; H Ahrens; G Gosheger; M Nottrott; R Dieckmann; M-P Henrichs; A Streitbürger Journal: Unfallchirurg Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 1.000
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
Authors: Keijo T Mäkelä; Markus Matilainen; Pekka Pulkkinen; Anne M Fenstad; Leif I Havelin; Lars Engesaeter; Ove Furnes; Søren Overgaard; Alma B Pedersen; Johan Kärrholm; Henrik Malchau; Göran Garellick; Jonas Ranstam; Antti Eskelinen Journal: Acta Orthop Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 3.717
Authors: Moritz von Salis-Soglio; Mohamed Ghanem; Christian Lycke; Andreas Roth; Georg Osterhoff Journal: J Orthop Surg Res Date: 2021-08-18 Impact factor: 2.359