Literature DB >> 32898047

What Are the Long-term Results of Cemented Revision THA with Use of Both Acetabular and Femoral Impaction Bone Grafting in Patients Younger Than 55 Years?

Jason Verspeek1, Thijs A Nijenhuis1, Martijn F L Kuijpers1, Wim H C Rijnen1, B Willem Schreurs1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The increasing number of THAs in younger patients will inevitably result in an increase of revision procedures. However, there is little evidence about the outcome of revision procedures in this patient group. Therefore, we updated a previous study conducted 5 years ago about the outcome of revision procedures in patients younger than 55 years. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We sought to provide a concise update on the previously reported (1) long-term failure rate as defined by repeat revision, (2) clinical outcome as defined by the Oxford Hip score and the Harris Hip score, and (3) radiographic outcome of cemented revision THA performed with impaction bone grafting on both the acetabular and femoral sides in one surgery in patients younger than 55 years old.
METHODS: Between 1991 and 2007, we performed 86 complete THA revisions in patients younger than 55 years. In 38% (33 of 86) of revisions, bone impaction grafting was used on both the acetabular and femoral side because of acetabular and femoral bone stock loss. Mean age at time of revision was 46 ± 8 years. No patient was lost to follow-up, but six patients died during follow-up, including three since 2015. Still, the hips of all 33 patients were included in analysis at a mean of 17 ± 5 years. Failure was calculated using competing risk analysis. For clinical outcome, we assessed the Harris Hip score and the Oxford Hip score from our longitudinally maintained institutional database. Radiographic analysis was performed to evaluate radiographic loosening, defined as radiolucencies ≥ 2 mm in all zones or ≥ 5 mm migration for both components. The acetabular component was also considered loose with tilting ≥ 5°.
RESULTS: The 15-year failure rate of revision THA was 27% (95% CI 13 to 44) for re-revision of any component for any reason and 10% (95% CI 3 to 25) for re-revision of any component for aseptic loosening. The mean Harris Hip score increased from 55 ± 18 preoperatively to 74 ± 22 at latest follow-up. Eight cups were considered radiographically loose, seven of which were re-revised. No stems were considered radiographically loose. Failure rate with endpoint radiographic loosening at 15 years was 23% (95% CI 10 to 39).
CONCLUSION: We found that impaction bone grafting with a cemented cup and a cemented stem is a valuable biological revision technique that results in a stable and durable solution, after one or even multiple previous revision THAs. Although current implants may prove sufficient in most cases, they do not promote bone stock preservation. We believe that in young patients with bone stock loss, impaction bone grafting can be used as long as the defect can be contained adequately with a metal mesh and viable bone bed is available for revascularization. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study.
Copyright © 2020 by the Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2021        PMID: 32898047      PMCID: PMC7899485          DOI: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000001462

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.755


  25 in total

1.  The femur in revision total hip arthroplasty evaluation and classification.

Authors:  Craig J Della Valle; Wayne G Paprosky
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  [Trends in the number of knee and hip arthroplasties: considerably more knee and hip prostheses due to osteoarthritis in 2030].

Authors:  Renee Otten; Peter M van Roermund; H Susan J Picavet
Journal:  Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd       Date:  2010

3.  Femoral impaction bone allografting with an Exeter cemented collarless, polished, tapered stem in revision hip replacement: a mean follow-up of 10.5 years.

Authors:  P J Wraighte; P W Howard
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2008-08

4.  Femoral component revision with use of impaction bone-grafting and a cemented polished stem: a concise follow-up, at fifteen to twenty years, of a previous report.

Authors:  Martijn A J te Stroet; Jean W M Gardeniers; Nico Verdonschot; Wim H C Rijnen; Tom J J H Slooff; B Willem Schreurs
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2012-12-05       Impact factor: 5.284

5.  Mid-to long-term results of revision total hip replacement in patients aged 50 years or younger.

Authors:  P T H Lee; D L Lakstein; B Lozano; O Safir; J Backstein; A E Gross
Journal:  Bone Joint J       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 5.082

6.  Clinical and radiographic outcomes of acetabular impaction grafting without cage reinforcement for revision hip replacement: a minimum ten-year follow-up study.

Authors:  J Gilbody; C Taylor; G E Bartlett; S L Whitehouse; M J W Hubble; A J Timperley; J R Howell; M J Wilson
Journal:  Bone Joint J       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 5.082

7.  Femoral component revision with use of impaction bone-grafting and a cemented polished stem. Surgical technique.

Authors:  B Willem Schreurs; J J Chris Arts; Nico Verdonschot; Pieter Buma; Tom J J H Slooff; Jean W M Gardeniers
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 5.284

8.  Acetabular Reconstructions with Impaction Bone-Grafting and a Cemented Cup in Patients Younger Than 50 Years of Age: A Concise Follow-up, at 27 to 35 Years, of a Previous Report.

Authors:  Marloes W J L Schmitz; Gerjon Hannink; Jean W M Gardeniers; Nico Verdonschot; Tom J J H Slooff; B Willem Schreurs
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2017-10-04       Impact factor: 5.284

9.  Femoral impaction bone grafting with the Exeter stem - the Swedish experience: survivorship analysis of 1305 revisions performed between 1989 and 2002.

Authors:  E Ornstein; L Linder; J Ranstam; S Lewold; T Eisler; M Torper
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2009-04

10.  Bone grafting in total hip replacement for acetabular protrusion.

Authors:  T J Slooff; R Huiskes; J van Horn; A J Lemmens
Journal:  Acta Orthop Scand       Date:  1984-12
View more
  2 in total

1.  Impaction Bone Grafting with Low Dose Irradiated Freeze-Dried Allograft Bone for Acetabular Reconstruction.

Authors:  Hongxing Li; Kelvin Guoping Tan; Zhiling Li; Xiaoxin Wu; Guangping Cai; Weihong Zhu; Tianlong Huang; Wanchun Wang; Ross Crawford; Xinzhan Mao
Journal:  Orthop Surg       Date:  2022-08-26       Impact factor: 2.279

2.  CORR Insights®: What Are the Long-term Results of Cemented Revision THA with Use of Both Acetabular and Femoral Impaction Bone Grafting in Patients Younger Than 55 Years?

Authors:  Scott S Kelley
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2021-01-01       Impact factor: 4.755

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.