Literature DB >> 27803221

Five-year outcome of proximal femoral endoprosthetic arthroplasty for non-tumour indications.

G Grammatopoulos1, A Alvand2, H Martin1, D Whitwell1, A Taylor1, C L M H Gibbons1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: A possible solution for the management of proximal femoral bone loss is a modular femoral endoprosthesis (EPR). Although the outcome of EPRs in tumour surgery has been well described, the outcome of their use in revision hip surgery has received less attention. The aim of this study was to describe the outcome of using EPR for non-neoplastic indications.
METHODS: A retrospective review of 79 patients who underwent 80 EPRs for non-neoplastic indications was performed, including the rates of complication and survival and the mean Oxford Hip Scores (OHS), at a mean of five years post-operatively. The mean age at the time of surgery was 69 years (28 to 93) and the mean number of previous operations on the hip was 2.4 (0 to 17). The most common indications for EPR implantation were periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) (n = 40), periprosthetic fracture (n = 12) and failed osteosynthesis of a proximal femoral fracture or complex trauma (n = 11).
RESULTS: Salvage was achieved in all patients. A total of 25 patients (25 EPRs, 31.6%) had a complication, the most common being infection (n = 9) and dislocation (n = 3). Further surgery was required for 18 EPRs (22%), nine of which were revision procedures. The five year survival of the EPR was 87% (95%CI: 76% to 98%). The mean OHS was 28 (4 to 48). Inferior survival and outcomes were seen in EPRs which were performed for the treatment of infection. However, the eradication of infection was achieved in 33 of the 40 (82.5%) which were undertaken for this indication.
CONCLUSION: We recommend the continued use of proximal femoral EPRs for non-neoplastic indications, including PJI. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:1463-70. ©2016 The British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Endo-prosthesis; Hip; Periprosthetic joint infection; Proximal femoral arthroplasty; Revision

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27803221     DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.98B11.BJJ-2016-0244.R1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Bone Joint J        ISSN: 2049-4394            Impact factor:   5.082


  10 in total

1.  Use of modular megaprosthesis in managing chronic end-stage periprosthetic hip and knee infections: Is there an increase in relapse rate?

Authors:  Pablo S Corona; Matias Vicente; Mireia Lalanza; Carles Amat; Luis Carrera
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2018-01-24

2.  Proximal femoral replacement in non-oncologic patients undergoing revision total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Ivan De Martino; Rocco D'Apolito; Allina A Nocon; Thomas P Sculco; Peter K Sculco; Mathias P Bostrom
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2018-11-10       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 3.  Bone loss in aseptic revision total knee arthroplasty: management and outcomes.

Authors:  Thomas Bieganowski; Daniel B Buchalter; Vivek Singh; John J Mercuri; Vinay K Aggarwal; Joshua C Rozell; Ran Schwarzkopf
Journal:  Knee Surg Relat Res       Date:  2022-06-20

Review 4.  Revision surgery due to failed internal fixation of intertrochanteric femoral fracture: current state-of-the-art.

Authors:  Pei Liu; Dongxu Jin; Changqing Zhang; Youshui Gao
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2020-08-22       Impact factor: 2.362

5.  Management of peri-prosthetic joint infection and severe bone loss after total hip arthroplasty using a long-stemmed cemented custom-made articulating spacer (CUMARS).

Authors:  J Quayle; A Barakat; A Klasan; A Mittal; G Chan; J Gibbs; M Edmondson; P Stott
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2021-04-16       Impact factor: 2.362

6.  Modular megaprostheses in the treatment of periprosthetic fractures of the femur.

Authors:  Sebastian R Apprich; Arastoo Nia; Markus M Schreiner; Maximilian Jesch; Christoph Böhler; Reinhard Windhager
Journal:  Wien Klin Wochenschr       Date:  2021-04-13       Impact factor: 1.704

7.  Survivorship and clinical outcomes of proximal femoral replacement in non-neoplastic primary and revision total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review.

Authors:  Fabio Mancino; Vincenzo Di Matteo; Fabrizio Mocini; Giorgio Cacciola; Giuseppe Malerba; Carlo Perisano; Ivan De Martino
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2021-11-08       Impact factor: 2.562

8.  Megaprostheses for the revision of infected hip arthroplasties with severe bone loss.

Authors:  Nicola Logoluso; Francesca Alice Pedrini; Carlo Luca Romanò; Antonio Virgilio Pellegrini; Ilaria Morelli; Elena De Vecchi
Journal:  BMC Surg       Date:  2022-02-25       Impact factor: 2.102

9.  Proximal femoral replacement in non-neoplastic revision hip arthroplasty : five-year results.

Authors:  Kevin Syam; P Nithin Unnikrishnan; Naveen K Lokikere; William Wilson-Theaker; Anil Gambhir; Nikhil Shah; Martyn Porter
Journal:  Bone Jt Open       Date:  2022-03

10.  One-Stage Hip Revision Arthroplasty Using Megaprosthesis in Severe Bone Loss of The Proximal Femur Due to Radiological Diffuse Osteomyelitis.

Authors:  Roy Gonzalez; Ernesto Muñoz-Mahamud; Guillem Bori
Journal:  Trop Med Infect Dis       Date:  2021-12-31
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.