Literature DB >> 8775702

The Wagner revision stem in alloarthroplasty of the hip.

C H Hartwig1, P Böhm, U Czech, P Reize, W Küsswetter.   

Abstract

Forty-one Wagner revision stems were implanted at the Orthopedic Department of the University of Tübingen between July 1990 and January 1993. We report the results of 37 patients at an average follow-up of 27 months (13-48 months) postoperatively. The main indication was stem loosening with considerable loss of bone. In addition, we used the implant 4 times in primary arthroplasty. At follow-up examination 33 patients (89%) were satisfied with the postoperative outcome. According to the Merle D'Aubigné score (12-point scale), 32 patients showed a poor functional result of less than 6 points preoperatively. Postoperatively, the results of 36 patients could be classified as very good to good. To categorise the radiological destruction of the implant bed, we used the femoral shaft defect classification of the DGOT (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Orthopädie und Traumatologie) in conjunction with the classification of Pak and Paproski [5, 11]. Twenty patients presented with trochanteric and calcar defects, and 11 patients with a combination of a calcar and shaft defect. We found a circular shaft defect in 2 patients. In 7 cases we assessed the bone remodelling postoperatively as very good, with strong newly formed bone structures, and in 25 cases as good, with remodelling of the old stem bed and bony structuring of the osteolyses. A secondary sinking in of the Wagner stem was seen in 7 cases. Only one stem had to be revised because of pain symptoms and loosening; in all other cases a secondary stabilisation of the revision-stem took place. With the Wagner revision stem, there is the possibility of achieving mechanical stability even in situations with massive bone loss. The evacuation of bone cement and granulation tissues is facilitated by the transfemoral approach, bony remodelling is accelerated, and bone grafting is often not necessary. As our short-term results show, the concept is a promising one. Nevertheless, we will be very careful in following these patients in the long term, as we have noticed stem sinkage in a small percentage of cases.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8775702     DOI: 10.1007/bf00453209

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg        ISSN: 0936-8051            Impact factor:   3.067


  13 in total

Review 1.  [Loosening of hip prostheses].

Authors:  B M Wroblewski
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  1989-09       Impact factor: 1.087

2.  [Reaction of the bone to a cement-free SL femur revision prosthesis. Histologic findings in an autopsy specimen 5 1/2 months after surgery].

Authors:  R K Schenk; U Wehrli
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  1989-09       Impact factor: 1.087

3.  Revision total hip arthroplasty for aseptic failure. A review of 276 cases.

Authors:  C J Kershaw; R M Atkins; C A Dodd; C J Bulstrode
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1991-07

4.  Unsatisfactory results after repeated revision of hip arthroplasty. 61 cases followed for 5 (1-10) years.

Authors:  J B Retpen; J E Varmarken; N D Röck; J S Jensen
Journal:  Acta Orthop Scand       Date:  1992-04

5.  [Revision prosthesis for the hip joint in severe bone loss].

Authors:  H Wagner
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  1987-08       Impact factor: 1.087

6.  The transgluteal approach to the hip joint.

Authors:  R Bauer; F Kerschbaumer; S Poisel; W Oberthaler
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  1979-10

7.  [Revision arthroplasty of the hip joint with autologous and homologous cancellous bone].

Authors:  E Morscher; W Dick; W Seelig
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  1989-09       Impact factor: 1.087

8.  [A revision prosthesis for the hip joint].

Authors:  H Wagner
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  1989-09       Impact factor: 1.087

9.  Femoral strut allografts in cementless revision total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  J H Pak; W G Paprosky; W S Jablonsky; J M Lawrence
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1993-10       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  [Femur revision prosthesis].

Authors:  H Wagner; M Wagner
Journal:  Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb       Date:  1993 Nov-Dec
View more
  6 in total

1.  Stem and osteotomy length are critical for success of the transfemoral approach and cementless stem revision.

Authors:  Daniel F A de Menezes; Pierre Le Béguec; Hans-Peter Sieber; Mathias Goldschild
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2011-08-06       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  [Modular noncemented femoral stem system in revision total hip arthroplasty].

Authors:  M D Schofer; T Efe; T J Heyse; N Timmesfeld; R Velte; F Hinrichs; J Schmitt
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 1.087

3.  Nonmodular Tapered Fluted Titanium Stems Osseointegrate Reliably at Short Term in Revision THAs.

Authors:  Nemandra A Sandiford; Donald S Garbuz; Bassam A Masri; Clive P Duncan
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2016-09-26       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  Proximal bone remodelling differed between two types of titanium long femoral components after cementless revision arthroplasty.

Authors:  Daiki Iwana; Takashi Nishii; Hidenobu Miki; Nobuhiko Sugano; Takashi Sakai; Kenji Ohzono; Hideki Yoshikawa
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2007-04-27       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 5.  The transfemoral approach for controlled removal of well-fixed femoral stems in hip revision surgery.

Authors:  Bernd Fink
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2019-11-09

6.  Infectiological, functional, and radiographic outcome after revision for prosthetic hip infection according to a strict algorithm.

Authors:  F Harald R De Man; Parham Sendi; Werner Zimmerli; Thomas B Maurer; Peter E Ochsner; Thomas Ilchmann
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2010-12-29       Impact factor: 3.717

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.