Literature DB >> 3416541

Preparation of the proximal femur in cementless total hip revision.

T H Mallory1.   

Abstract

With an increased incidence of revision for the failed cemented total hip arthroplasty, techniques of revision surgery need meticulous attention to detail. Although the causes of the failed cemented total hip arthroplasty are many, they tend to follow characteristic patterns. The proximal femur can be exposed through an extensive muscle split incision, which offers a complete circumferential view of the femur. The cement removal is enhanced by controlled perforation using high-speed drills. Classification of bony deficits of the proximal femur can be divided into Type I, including intact cortex and medullary content; Type II, in which there is intact cortex but deficient medullary content; and Type III, in which deficits of both the cortex and medullary canal are present. Prosthetic selection is based on residual bone stock. In general, cementless fixation is advocated, with distal fixation using long-stem devices. Augmentation of bone deficits requires the use of segmental prosthetic replacement or fresh-frozen allografts. One hundred sixty patients were followed for two to six years. Satisfactory results have occurred in over 90% of the patients; better results are anticipated in patients with minimal bone deficits. Aseptic loosening requiring rerevision has occurred in 5% of the patient population. Understanding the dynamics of failure and the residual bone deficits allows one to manage the failed cemented total hip arthroplasty with greater efficiency and predictability.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1988        PMID: 3416541

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.176


  9 in total

1.  [Replacement of femoral hip prostheses].

Authors:  M Rudert; M Hoberg; P M Prodinger; R Gradinger; B M Holzapfel
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 0.955

2.  Femoral revision with an extensively hydroxyapatite-coated femoral component.

Authors:  Lawrence V Gulotta; Andreas Baldini; Kristin Foote; Stephen Lyman; Bryan J Nestor
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2007-12-01

Review 3.  Revision arthroplasty: an update.

Authors:  D Williams; A Taylor; P McLardy-Smith
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 2.199

Review 4.  Classifications In Brief: The Paprosky Classification of Femoral Bone Loss.

Authors:  David A Ibrahim; Navin D Fernando
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2016-08-02       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Revision arthroplasty with an isoelastic uncemented femoral stem.

Authors:  T J Niinimäki; J P Puranen; P K Jalovaara
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  1995       Impact factor: 3.075

6.  Modular femoral stems for revision total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Camilo Restrepo; Magdalena Mashadi; Javad Parvizi; Matthew S Austin; William J Hozack
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  Staged custom, intramedullary antibiotic spacers for severe segmental bone loss in infected total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Atul F Kamath; Okechukwu Anakwenze; Gwo-Chin Lee; Charles L Nelson
Journal:  Adv Orthop       Date:  2011-08-17

8.  Early outcomes after revision total hip arthroplasty with a modern modular femoral revision stem in 65 consecutive cases.

Authors:  Christopher E Pelt; Marissa L Stagg; Christin Van Dine; Mike B Anderson; Christopher L Peters; Jeremy M Gililland
Journal:  Arthroplast Today       Date:  2018-11-17

9.  Revision total hip arthroplasty using an extensively porous coated femoral stem.

Authors:  Kyoung Ho Moon; Joon Soon Kang; Sang Hyup Lee; Sae Rom Jung
Journal:  Clin Orthop Surg       Date:  2009-05-30
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.