Literature DB >> 7127962

Revision total hip arthroplasty.

P M Pellicci, P D Wilson, C B Sledge, E A Salvati, C S Ranawat, R Poss.   

Abstract

In this review, 110 hips in 107 patients underwent revision total hip arthroplasty at The Hospital for Special Surgery and the Robert B. Brigham Hospital. The minimum follow-up period was two years (average, 3.4 years). Failures of the original total hip arthroplasties were due to loosening of the femoral component (44 hips), loosening of both components (23 hips), loosening of the acetabular component (17 hips), fracture of the femoral component (14 hips), recurrent dislocation due to prosthetic malposition (7 hips), acetabular protrusion (3 hips), and fracture of the femoral shaft (2 hips). Sixty-six hips were categorized as good or excellent, and 25 hips were rated as fair. Nineteen poor results were due to: (a) deep infection (2 hips); (b) mechanical failure (15 hips); and (c) recurrent dislocation (2 hips). Complications included infection (3.6%), trochanteric problems (13%), mechanical failure (14%), and progressive radiolucent zones (26%). The quality of the result of a revision total hip arthroplasty is potentially as good as that of the original arthroplasty. However, the higher incidence of infection and mechanical failure reduces the frequency of such good results in the long-term. The extremely high incidence of progressive radiolucent zones at the bone-cement interface makes predictions for even longer term results guarded.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1982        PMID: 7127962

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


  8 in total

1.  The Hospital for Special Surgery 1972-1989; Philip D. Wilson, Jr., Eighth Surgeon-in-Chief.

Authors:  David B Levine
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2010-04-27

2.  Reconstructive surgery of the lower extremity.

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

3.  Improved cementation in total hip replacement.

Authors:  K Søballe; F Christensen
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  1988

Review 4.  Why have we left Charnley low friction arthroplasty?

Authors:  D D Goetz; W H Harris
Journal:  Iowa Orthop J       Date:  1993

5.  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

6.  Revision of total hip arthroplasty using the Kerboull and KT plates.

Authors:  Tomonori Baba; Katsuo Shitoto
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2009-05-07       Impact factor: 3.075

7.  A prospective study of hip revision surgery using the Exeter long-stem prosthesis: function, subsidence, and complications for 57 patients.

Authors:  K Randhawa; F S Hossain; B Smith; Cyril Mauffrey; T Lawrence
Journal:  J Orthop Traumatol       Date:  2009-10-24

Review 8.  Outcomes of dual modular cementless femoral stems in revision hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Ali Ghoz; Matthew L Broadhead; John Morley; Shawn Tavares; David McDonald
Journal:  Orthop Rev (Pavia)       Date:  2014-03-31
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.