Literature DB >> 3416544

Results of cementless revision for failed cemented total hip arthroplasty.

C A Engh1, A H Glassman, W L Griffin, J G Mayer.   

Abstract

The goals of revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) are to reestablish and maintain stable implant fixation. Based upon promising early results in primary THA, porous-surfaced implants designed for bone ingrowth fixation are being increasingly used in hopes of more successfully achieving these goals than has been the case using cement. One hundred and sixty such revisions were followed for a mean of 4.4 years, with specific reference to implant fixation. Roentgenographic evaluation of implant fixation suggested four categories of femoral and acetabular components: (1) bone ingrown, (2) stable fibrous encapsulation, (3) questionable, with signs of impending instability, or (4) definitely unstable implant migration, indicative of the need for rerevision. Not surprisingly, success in achieving and maintaining stable implant fixation following revision THA is dependent upon component design, surgical technique, and preexistent bone stock damage. This classification according to bone stock damage should be borne in mind when critically evaluating the results from various revision series.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1988        PMID: 3416544

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


  30 in total

1.  Long-term follow-up of primary total hip arthroplasty with the Alloclassic Variall system.

Authors:  Josef Hochreiter; Giovanni Brusaferri; Klaus Kirschbichler; Katja Emmanuel
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2015-08-18       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  Fifteen- to 20-year results of uncemented tapered fully porous-coated cobalt-chrome stems.

Authors:  Taek Rim Yoon; Sung-Man Rowe; Myung-Sun Kim; Sang-Gwon Cho; Jong-Keun Seon
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2007-02-24       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 3.  Classifications in brief: Paprosky classification of acetabular bone loss.

Authors:  Jessica J M Telleria; Albert O Gee
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-08-31       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  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 5.  Cementless acetabular revision: past, present, and future. Revision total hip arthroplasty: the acetabular side using cementless implants.

Authors:  Luis Pulido; Sridhar R Rachala; Miguel E Cabanela
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2011-01-14       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 6.  Acetabular reinforcement rings associated with allograft for severe acetabular defects.

Authors:  Emmanuel Gibon; Luc Kerboull; Jean-Pierre Courpied; Moussa Hamadouche
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2018-09-13       Impact factor: 3.075

7.  Hip hemiarthroplasty for femoral neck fractures in end-stage renal disease patients on dialysis compared to patients with late-stage chronic kidney disease.

Authors:  Benjamin Tk Ding; Abhishek Shinde; Kelvin G Tan
Journal:  Singapore Med J       Date:  2019-08       Impact factor: 1.858

8.  Total hip arthroplasty revision in elderly people with cement and Burch-Schneider anti-protrusio cage.

Authors:  L Gaiani; R Bertelli; Massimo Palmonari; G Vicenzi
Journal:  Chir Organi Mov       Date:  2009-04-29

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

10.  Large femoral bone loss after hip revision using the uncemented proximally porous-coated Bi-Metric prosthesis: 22 hips followed for a mean of 6 years.

Authors:  Per Y Adolphson; Mats O F Salemyr; Olof G Sköldenberg; Henrik S G Bodén
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 3.717

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.