Literature DB >> 28669102

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

Luca Cavagnaro1, Matteo Formica2, Marco Basso2, Andrea Zanirato2, Stefano Divano2, Lamberto Felli2.   

Abstract

The use of primary cementless stems in femoral revision has gained popularity, but no clear consensus about the correct indication is still present. The aim of our systematic review is to: (1) summarize the available literature focused on the use of cementless primary stem in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA); (2) evaluate whether the use of cementless primary stems could represent a feasible option in hip revision; (3) define the proper indication of this surgical approach. A systematic literature review was performed about the use of cementless primary stems in revision THA. The PRISMA 2009 checklist was considered to edit our review. A total of nine articles were included. The current evidence is primarily Level IV. A total of 439 patients (454 hips) underwent THA revision with primary cementless stem. Partial cementless porous coated stems were used in 246 hips (54.2%). The majority of patients were affected by type I or II Paprosky femoral defects. The mean stem-related survival rate is 95.6% ± 3.8 with a mean follow-up of 4.7 years ± 1.3. Poor standardization of methodological analysis was observed. Current literature shows lacking evidence about primary cementless stems in revision THA. Despite these limitations, we can affirm that primary cementless stems in femoral revision surgery represent a viable option in selected patients. The proper indication is a patient with femoral Paprosky defect types I or II, with low number of previous surgeries and a previous cementless stem.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cementless stem; Hip revision; Primary hip stem; Review; Total hip arthroplasty

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28669102     DOI: 10.1007/s12306-017-0487-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Musculoskelet Surg        ISSN: 2035-5114


  44 in total

1.  [Classification of bone loss: reproducibility of classifications and lesion groupings].

Authors:  H Migaud; T Ala Eddine; X Demondion; C Jardin; P Laffargue; F Dujardin; J P Courpied
Journal:  Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot       Date:  2000-09

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

Authors:  Matthew W Tetreault; Sanjai K Shukla; Paul H Yi; Scott M Sporer; Craig J Della Valle
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  The extended trochanteric osteotomy in revision hip arthroplasty: a critical review of 166 cases at mean 3-year, 9-month follow-up.

Authors:  T M Miner; N G Momberger; D Chong; W L Paprosky
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 4.757

4.  What is the fate of the neck after a collum femoris preserving prosthesis? a nineteen years single center experience.

Authors:  Matteo Formica; Luca Cavagnaro; Marco Basso; Andrea Zanirato; Augusto Palermo; Lamberto Felli
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2016-11-26       Impact factor: 3.075

5.  Periprosthetic fractures around a cementless hydroxyapatite-coated implant: a new fracture pattern is described.

Authors:  William N Capello; James A D'Antonio; Marybeth Naughton
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  The Use of Structural Distal Femoral Allograft for Acetabular Reconstruction of Paprosky Type IIIA Defects at a Mean 21 Years of Follow-Up.

Authors:  Nicholas M Brown; Joe Morrison; Scott M Sporer; Wayne G Paprosky
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2015-10-26       Impact factor: 4.757

7.  Uncemented revision total hip arthroplasty: a 4-to-6-year review.

Authors:  B D Mulliken; C H Rorabeck; R B Bourne
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  The use of a hydroxyapatite-coated primary stem in revision total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Stephen J Kelly; Stephen J Incavo; Bruce Beynnon
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 4.757

9.  Results of a tapered proximally-coated primary cementless stem for revision hip surgery.

Authors:  Harpal S Khanuja; Kimona Issa; Qais Naziri; Samik Banerjee; Ronald E Delanois; Michael A Mont
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2013-05-20       Impact factor: 4.757

10.  Implant survival and radiographic outcome of total hip replacement in patients less than 20 years old.

Authors:  Masako Tsukanaka; Vera Halvorsen; Lars Nordsletten; Ingvild Ø EngesæTer; Lars B EngesæTer; Anne Marie Fenstad; Stephan M Röhrl
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2016-07-20       Impact factor: 3.717

View more
  11 in total

1.  A new classification for proximal femur bone defects in conservative hip arthroplasty revisions.

Authors:  Filippo Casella; Fabio Favetti; Gabriele Panegrossi; Matteo Papalia; Francesco Falez
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2018-12-11       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  Metaphyseal cones and sleeves in revision total knee arthroplasty: Two sides of the same coin? Complications, clinical and radiological results-a systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  A Zanirato; M Formica; L Cavagnaro; S Divano; G Burastero; L Felli
Journal:  Musculoskelet Surg       Date:  2019-03-16

3.  Acetabular custom-made implants for severe acetabular bone defect in revision total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Francesco Chiarlone; Andrea Zanirato; Luca Cavagnaro; Mattia Alessio-Mazzola; Lamberto Felli; Giorgio Burastero
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2020-01-20       Impact factor: 3.067

4.  A new classification for proximal femur bone defects in conservative hip arthroplasty revisions.

Authors:  Filippo Casella; Fabio Favetti; Gabriele Panegrossi; Matteo Papalia; Francesco Falez
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2018-11-15       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 5.  [Strategies for stem revision : Surgery planning, implant removal and reimplantation].

Authors:  Sebastian Hardt; Lukas Schönnagel; Christian Hipfl
Journal:  Orthopadie (Heidelb)       Date:  2022-07-08

6.  Mid-term outcomes of titanium modular neck femoral stems in revision total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Hervé Ouanezar; Thomas Jalaguier; Florent Franck; Vincent Pibarot; Hugo Bothorel; Mo Saffarini; Jean-Pierre Piton
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2019-03

7.  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

8.  Proximal femoral replacement for non-neoplastic conditions: a systematic review on current outcomes.

Authors:  Alberto Di Martino; Davide Pederiva; Barbara Bordini; Gabriele Di Carlo; Alessandro Panciera; Giuseppe Geraci; Niccolò Stefanini; Cesare Faldini
Journal:  J Orthop Traumatol       Date:  2022-03-29

9.  Are short-stem prostheses superior to conventional stem prostheses in primary total hip arthroplasty? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Authors:  Hao-Dong Liang; Wei-Yi Yang; Jian-Ke Pan; He-Tao Huang; Ming-Hui Luo; Ling-Feng Zeng; Jun Liu
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-09-21       Impact factor: 2.692

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.