Literature DB >> 27672012

Nonmodular Tapered Fluted Titanium Stems Osseointegrate Reliably at Short Term in Revision THAs.

Nemandra A Sandiford1, Donald S Garbuz2, Bassam A Masri3, Clive P Duncan3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The ideal femoral component for revision THA is undecided. Cylindrical nonmodular stems have been associated with stress shielding, whereas junctional fractures have been reported with tapered fluted modular titanium stems. We have used a tapered fluted nonmodular titanium femoral component (Wagner Self-locking [SL] femoral stem) to mitigate this risk. This component has been used extensively in Europe by its designer surgeons, but to our knowledge, it has not been studied in North America. Added to this, the design of the component has changed since early reports. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We asked: (1) Does the Wagner SL stem have low rates of rerevision and other complications at a minimum 2 years after surgery? (2) Is the Wagner SL stem associated with high levels of patient function and pain relief at a minimum 2 years after surgery? (3) Does the Wagner SL stem have low rates of subsidence at a minimum 2 years after surgery? (4) Is the Wagner SL stem associated with proximal femoral bone remodeling at a minimum 2 years after surgery?
METHOD: Between May 2011 and December 2012, we performed 198 femoral revisions, of which 104 (53%) were performed using the Wagner SL femoral stem; during that period, our institution gradually shifted toward increasing use of these stems for all but the most severe revisions, in which modular fluted stems and proximal femoral replacements still are used on an occasional basis. Median followup in this retrospective study was 32 months (range, 24-46 months), and one patient was lost to followup before the 2-year minimum. The femoral deformities in this series were Paprosky Type I (10 hips), Paprosky Type II (26), Paprosky Type IIIA (52), Paprosky Type IIIB (nine), and Paprosky Type IV (two). Functional assessment was performed using the Oxford Hip Score (OHS), WOMAC, SF-12, and the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) activity score. All complications and cases of revision were documented. All patients had radiographs performed within 1 year of the latest followup. These were assessed by two surgeons for signs of proximal femoral bone remodeling and subsidence.
RESULTS: Complete preoperative scores were available for 98 patients (98 of 104; 94%). The mean OHS preoperatively and at final followup were 39 (SD, 15) and 87 (SD, 19), respectively (p < 0.001; mean difference, 48; 95% CI, 43-53). Average WOMAC scores were 44 (SD, 15) and 87 (SD, 20), respectively (p < 0.001; mean difference, 43; 95% CI, 38-48). At final followup, signs of restoration of proximal femoral bone stock was noted in 45 of 103 hips (44%). Six (six of 104; 6%) patients had subsidence of 10 mm to 15 mm. In the remainder (98 of 104; 94%), the mean subsidence was 2 mm (range, 0-9 mm). One revision was performed for loosening associated with infection.
CONCLUSIONS: The Wagner SL stem is a viable option for patients with Paprosky Types II and III defects undergoing revision THA. This component provides high levels of patient function with low revision rates and low rates of subsidence during the early postoperative phase. They provide a viable alternative to modular components for treatment of Types II and III defects without the risk of junctional fractures. They can be used for very selected Type IV defects, however this extent of bone loss is most easily addressed with other techniques such as a proximal femoral replacement. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27672012      PMCID: PMC5174054          DOI: 10.1007/s11999-016-5091-x

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


  38 in total

1.  Cone prosthesis for the hip joint.

Authors:  H Wagner; M Wagner
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 3.067

2.  [The value of the Wagner SL revision prosthesis for bridging large femoral defects].

Authors:  H P Bircher; U Riede; M Lüem; P E Ochsner
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 1.087

3.  Femoral revision: distal fixation with fluted, tapered grit-blasted stems.

Authors:  Daniel J Berry
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 4.757

4.  Early loosening of femoral components after cemented revision. A roentgen stereophotogrammetric study.

Authors:  H Franzén; B Mjöberg; R Onnerfält
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1992-09

5.  Stem subsidence after total hip revision: 183 cases at 5.9 years follow-up.

Authors:  J Girard; O Roche; G Wavreille; F Canovas; P Le Béguec
Journal:  Orthop Traumatol Surg Res       Date:  2011-03-23       Impact factor: 2.256

6.  Revision total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  B F Kavanagh; D M Ilstrup; R H Fitzgerald
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1985-04       Impact factor: 5.284

7.  Ectopic ossification following total hip replacement. Incidence and a method of classification.

Authors:  A F Brooker; J W Bowerman; R A Robinson; L H Riley
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1973-12       Impact factor: 5.284

8.  Femoral revision with the Wagner tapered stem: a ten- to 15-year follow-up study.

Authors:  D Regis; A Sandri; I Bonetti; M Braggion; P Bartolozzi
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2011-10

9.  Micromotion of femoral stems in total hip arthroplasty. A randomized study of cemented, hydroxyapatite-coated, and porous-coated stems with roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis.

Authors:  J Kärrholm; H Malchau; F Snorrason; P Herberts
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1994-11       Impact factor: 5.284

10.  Role and results of tapered fluted modular titanium stems in revision total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  J T Munro; D S Garbuz; B A Masri; C P Duncan
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2012-11
View more
  8 in total

1.  Minimum ten-year results in revision total hip arthroplasty using titanium fully porous long stem.

Authors:  Masahiro Hasegawa; Shine Tone; Yohei Naito; Hiroki Wakabayashi; Akihiro Sudo
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2021-04-07       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  Outcome of the Wagner Cone femoral component for difficult anatomical conditions during total hip arthroplasty.

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

3.  Subsidence of monoblock and modular titanium fluted tapered stems in revision hip arthroplasty: A retrospective multicentre comparison study.

Authors:  Eoghan Pomeroy; Seán O Flynn; Mihai Grigoras; Terence P Murphy; Alexandra I Stavrakis; Fiachra E Rowan
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2022-09-13

4.  Comparison of cylindrical and tapered stem designs for femoral revision hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Yu Zhang; Ye Zhang; Jian-Ning Sun; Zi-Jian Hua; Xiang-Yang Chen; Shuo Feng
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2020-06-29       Impact factor: 2.362

5.  Differences between proximal bone remodeling in femoral revisions for aseptic loosening and periprosthetic fractures using the Wagner SL stem.

Authors:  Gábor Friebert; Csaba Gombár; András Bozó; Ilona Polyák; Ádám Brzózka; Krisztián Sisák
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2021-02-17       Impact factor: 2.362

6.  Cementless total hip arthroplasty for failed treatment of subtrochanteric fracture.

Authors:  Sheng-Yu Jin; Jing-Yao Jin; Min-Gwang Kim; Woo-Jong Kim; Taek-Rim Yoon; Kyung-Soon Park
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2021-04-24       Impact factor: 2.362

7.  Long-term outcomes of cementless femoral stem revision with the Wagner cone prosthesis.

Authors:  Kyung-Soon Park; Sheng-Yu Jin; Jun-Hyuk Lim; Taek-Rim Yoon
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2021-06-11       Impact factor: 2.359

8.  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

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.