Literature DB >> 3980495

Revision total hip arthroplasty.

B F Kavanagh, D M Ilstrup, R H Fitzgerald.   

Abstract

Two hundred and ten hips in 206 patients who had an initial total hip arthroplasty performed at the Mayo Clinic between 1969 and 1978 required revision of the arthroplasty at the Mayo Clinic for reasons other than infection. One hundred and sixty-two of the patients (166 hips) were followed both clinically and roentgenographically for two years or more. One hundred and forty-five (90 per cent) reported that they had improvement after the surgical revision. Complications that occurred with revision included deep sepsis, superficial would infection, dislocation, intraoperative femoral fracture, and postoperative femoral fracture. Roentgenographic analysis showed probable loosening in thirty-three acetabular components (20.1 per cent) and seventy-two femoral components (44 per cent). Symptomatic loosening (moderate to severe pain and probable roentgenographic loosening) was seen in thirty-five patients. Eight patients required a second revision for this reason, and seven others required a second revision for other reasons. Modified Harris hip scores, calculated for 108 hips, showed a good or excellent result in sixty-seven hips (62 per cent), a fair result in twelve (11 per cent), and a poor result in twenty-nine (27 per cent). Using a new Mayo Clinic hip score that incorporates roentgenographic data (which will be described) in the evaluation of 165 revised hips, there was a good or excellent result in eighty-five (52 per cent), a fair result in thirty-two (19 per cent), and a poor result in forty-eight hips (29 per cent). Although 90 per cent of the patients thought that their condition had improved, the high incidence of roentgenographic signs of probable loosening of a component is of serious concern.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1985        PMID: 3980495

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am        ISSN: 0021-9355            Impact factor:   5.284


  47 in total

Review 1.  [What can be done when hip prostheses fail? : New trends in revision endoprosthetics].

Authors:  S Gravius; T Randau; D C Wirtz
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 1.087

2.  Failed hip replacements.

Authors:  R N Villar
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1992-01-04

3.  The use of a dual-articulation acetabular cup system to prevent dislocation after primary total hip arthroplasty: analysis of 384 cases at a mean follow-up of 15 years.

Authors:  Remi Philippot; Jean Philippe Camilleri; Bertrand Boyer; Philippe Adam; Frederic Farizon
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2008-06-03       Impact factor: 3.075

4.  Long-term results after implantation of McKee-Farrar total hip prostheses.

Authors:  S Jantsch; W Schwägerl; P Zenz; M Semlitsch; W Fertschak
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  1991       Impact factor: 3.067

5.  Femoral shaft perforation at arthroplasty: to treat or not to treat.

Authors:  J Doyle; P Procter; M A Moloney
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  1990       Impact factor: 3.067

6.  Scanning electron microscopy investigation of PMMA removal by laser irradiation (Er:YAG) in comparison with an ultrasonic system and curettage in hip joint revision arthroplasty.

Authors:  Klaus Birnbaum; Norbert Gutknecht
Journal:  Lasers Med Sci       Date:  2010-03-31       Impact factor: 3.161

7.  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

8.  Reconstructive surgery of the lower extremity.

Authors:  R J Claridge
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  1990-03       Impact factor: 3.275

Review 9.  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

10.  Allograft bone transplantation: a Sheffield experience.

Authors:  M T Khan; I Stockley; C Ibbotson
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 1.891

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.