Kyung-Soon Park1, Sheng-Yu Jin1, Jun-Hyuk Lim1, Taek-Rim Yoon2. 1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Center for Joint Disease, Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital, 322 Seo Yang-Ro, Hwasun-Eup, Hwasun-Gun, Gwangju, Jeonnam, 519-809, Republic of Korea. 2. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Center for Joint Disease, Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital, 322 Seo Yang-Ro, Hwasun-Eup, Hwasun-Gun, Gwangju, Jeonnam, 519-809, Republic of Korea. tryoon@naver.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The procedure of femoral stem revision is challenging, and bone conservation with less stress shielding is a mandatory effort in these cases. Although there are several reports of stem revision with stems designed for primary total hip arthroplasty (THA), there is no report on stem revision with the Wagner cone prosthesis. METHODS: Between 1996 and 2008, 41 hips of 41 consecutive patients were subjected to femoral revision THA using the Wagner cone prosthesis. The mean age during revision surgery was 56.1 years, and the mean follow-up period was 14.8 years. The clinical results were evaluated, and the femoral component was assessed radiologically. RESULTS: The results showed that the average period from the first operation to revision THA was 8.0 years. Additionally, the mean Harris hip score improved from 52 points preoperatively to 83 points at the final follow-up. All stems showed bone integration in the radiological evaluation. A subsidence of more than 5 mm was observed in 3 out of 28 (10.7%) femoral stems. Two patients needed an acetabular revision for acetabular cup loosening during the follow-up period. Furthermore, one patient had recurrent dislocation and had to undergo revision surgery for soft tissue augmentation. CONCLUSIONS: We achieved favorable clinical and radiological long-term outcomes in femoral stem revision using the Wagner cone prosthesis. This cementless femoral stem could be an option for femoral stem revision in cases with relatively good bone stock.
BACKGROUND: The procedure of femoral stem revision is challenging, and bone conservation with less stress shielding is a mandatory effort in these cases. Although there are several reports of stem revision with stems designed for primary total hip arthroplasty (THA), there is no report on stem revision with the Wagner cone prosthesis. METHODS: Between 1996 and 2008, 41 hips of 41 consecutive patients were subjected to femoral revision THA using the Wagner cone prosthesis. The mean age during revision surgery was 56.1 years, and the mean follow-up period was 14.8 years. The clinical results were evaluated, and the femoral component was assessed radiologically. RESULTS: The results showed that the average period from the first operation to revision THA was 8.0 years. Additionally, the mean Harris hip score improved from 52 points preoperatively to 83 points at the final follow-up. All stems showed bone integration in the radiological evaluation. A subsidence of more than 5 mm was observed in 3 out of 28 (10.7%) femoral stems. Two patients needed an acetabular revision for acetabular cup loosening during the follow-up period. Furthermore, one patient had recurrent dislocation and had to undergo revision surgery for soft tissue augmentation. CONCLUSIONS: We achieved favorable clinical and radiological long-term outcomes in femoral stem revision using the Wagner cone prosthesis. This cementless femoral stem could be an option for femoral stem revision in cases with relatively good bone stock.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cementless femoral stem; Revision total hip arthroplasty; Stress shielding; Wagner cone prosthesis
Authors: Rasesh R Desai; Arthur L Malkani; Kirby D Hitt; Fredrick F Jaffe; John R Schurman; Jianhua Shen Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2012-06-27 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: Shuang G Yan; Matthias Woiczinski; Tobias F Schmidutz; Patrick Weber; Alexander C Paulus; Arnd Steinbrück; Volkmar Jansson; Florian Schmidutz Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2017-05-09 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Scott R Small; Sarah E Hensley; Paige L Cook; Rebecca A Stevens; Renee D Rogge; John B Meding; Michael E Berend Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2016-08-10 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: Thomas J. Wood; Mohammad Alzahrani; `Jacquelyn D. Marsh; Lyndsay E. Somerville; Edward M. Vasarhelyi; Brent A. Lanting Journal: Can J Surg Date: 2019-04-01 Impact factor: 2.089