Literature DB >> 33206205

Onlay fibula autografting technique and its comparison with cortical allograft for the reconstruction of periprosthetic bone defects around the femur.

İbrahim Tuncay1, Remzi Tözün2, Orkhan Aliyev1, Göksel Dikmen2, Gökçer Uzer1, Vahit Emre Özden2, Fatih Yıldız3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Bone defect around the femur related to revisions or periprosthetic fractures (PFF) is an issue. We present a bone defect reconstruction technique in femoral revisions and/or PFF using fibula autograft and compared our radiological and clinical results to that of allograft.
METHODS: A total of 53 patients who underwent revision hip arthroplasty and/or PFF fixation with the use of cortical fibula autograft (FG group) or cortical allograft (CG group) were evaluated. After exclusions, 20 patients who had minimum two years of follow-up were investigated for each group, for their radiological and clinical outcomes.
RESULTS: In FG and CG groups, the median ages were 69.5(44-90) and 62(38-88) years, follow-ups were 59(28-72) and 120(48-216) months, defect lengths were seven (1-10) and ten (1-17) cm, and grafts lengths were 16.5(10-30) and 20(12-37) cm, respectively. The rate of graft incorporation was 90% in each group and median time to incorporations were seven (4-12) and 12(6-24) months (p < 0.001), and graft resorption (moderate and severe) rates were 10% and 25% (p = 0.41), respectively. Median Harris Hip (77.6 vs 78.0), WOMAC (23.2 vs 22), SF-12 physical (50.0 vs 46.1), and SF-12 mental (53.8 vs 52.5) scores were similar between the groups, respectively. Kaplan-Meier survivorship analyses revealed an estimated mean survival of 100% at six years in FG group and 90% at 14 years in CG group.
CONCLUSION: In the reconstruction of periprosthetic bone defects after femoral revision or PPF, onlay cortical fibula autografts provide comparable clinical and radiological outcomes to allografts. Its incorporation is faster, it is cost-effective and easy to obtain without apparent morbidity.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Allograft; Arthroplasty; Autograft; Fibula; Hip; Periprosthetic fracture; Revision

Year:  2020        PMID: 33206205     DOI: 10.1007/s00264-020-04876-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Orthop        ISSN: 0341-2695            Impact factor:   3.075


  36 in total

1.  Future clinical and economic impact of revision total hip and knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Steven M Kurtz; Kevin L Ong; Jordana Schmier; Fionna Mowat; Khaled Saleh; Eva Dybvik; Johan Kärrholm; Göran Garellick; Leif I Havelin; Ove Furnes; Henrik Malchau; Edmund Lau
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 5.284

2.  Prevalence of primary and revision total hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 1990 through 2002.

Authors:  Steven Kurtz; Fionna Mowat; Kevin Ong; Nathan Chan; Edmund Lau; Michael Halpern
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 5.284

3.  Early failure of precoated femoral components in primary total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Alvin Ong; Kirk L Wong; Max Lai; Jonathan P Garino; Marvin E Steinberg
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 5.284

4.  Revision hip arthroplasty: infection is the most common cause of failure.

Authors:  S Mehdi Jafari; Catelyn Coyle; S M Javad Mortazavi; Peter F Sharkey; Javad Parvizi
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Revision hip arthroplasty for late instability secondary to polyethylene wear.

Authors:  Javad Parvizi; Frazer A Wade; Venkat Rapuri; Bryan D Springer; Daniel J Berry; William J Hozack
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  Incidence rates of dislocation, pulmonary embolism, and deep infection during the first six months after elective total hip replacement.

Authors:  Charlotte B Phillips; Jane A Barrett; Elena Losina; Nizar N Mahomed; Elizabeth A Lingard; Edward Guadagnoli; John A Baron; William H Harris; Robert Poss; Jeffrey N Katz
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 5.284

7.  Total hip arthroplasties: what are the reasons for revision?

Authors:  Slif D Ulrich; Thorsten M Seyler; Derek Bennett; Ronald E Delanois; Khaled J Saleh; Issada Thongtrangan; Michael Kuskowski; Edward Y Cheng; Peter F Sharkey; Javad Parvizi; James B Stiehl; Michael A Mont
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2007-04-19       Impact factor: 3.075

8.  Current trends in revision of total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  B M Wroblewski
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  1984       Impact factor: 3.075

9.  The risk of revision after total hip arthroplasty in young patients depends on surgical approach, femoral head size and bearing type; an analysis of 19,682 operations in the Dutch arthroplasty register.

Authors:  M F L Kuijpers; G Hannink; S B W Vehmeijer; L N van Steenbergen; B W Schreurs
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2019-08-22       Impact factor: 2.362

10.  Long-term results of cemented total hip arthroplasty in patients younger than 30 years and the outcome of subsequent revisions.

Authors:  Marloes W J L Schmitz; Vincent J J F Busch; Jean W M Gardeniers; Jan C M Hendriks; René P H Veth; B Willem Schreurs
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2013-01-22       Impact factor: 2.362

View more
  1 in total

1.  Cortical allograft strut augmented with platelet-rich plasma for the treatment of long bone non-union in lower limb- a pilot study.

Authors:  Shenghui Wu; Kun Quan; Jiong Mei; Min Dai; Sa Song
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2022-05-30       Impact factor: 2.562

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.