Literature DB >> 9493537

Results of isolated acetabular revisions: the fate of the unrevised femoral component.

E D Poon1, P F Lachiewicz.   

Abstract

Controversy exists over whether to remove a well-fixed femoral component at the time of revision of a failed acetabular component, and it has been suggested that the femoral component be removed and recemented. The hypothesis presented in this article is that only the acetabular component should be revised in these situations. Thirty-eight isolated, uncemented acetabular revisions were performed by 1 surgeon and prospectively followed for a mean of 4 years (range, 2-10 years). The femoral component was well fixed at the time of revision and left in situ. There were 30 cemented and 8 uncemented femoral components, which had been in place for a mean of 10.7 years. The hips were evaluated clinically using the Harris hip score rating system. Radiographic evaluation of both components was performed using well-established criteria. Morselized cancellous allograft was used to fill acetabular defects in 30 hips, and a bulk allograft was used in 1 hip. There was a good or excellent clinical result in 32 hips (84%). Two cemented femoral components required revision for aseptic loosening at 2.5 and 4 years. No acetabular component migrated or was revised, and no revisions of either component are pending. Thirty-six (95%) of the unrevised femoral components remain well fixed at the most recent follow-up examination. Compared with a similar population of hips in which both the acetabular and femoral components were revised, the mean blood loss for these revisions was 52% less and the mean surgical time was 35% shorter. Revision of only the acetabular component is recommended for isolated acetabular aseptic loosening. Because the femoral component is not removed, surgical time and blood loss are decreased and serious potential complications related to removing a well-fixed femoral component can be avoided.

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9493537     DOI: 10.1016/s0883-5403(98)90074-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Arthroplasty        ISSN: 0883-5403            Impact factor:   4.757


  6 in total

1.  Isolated acetabular revision after total hip arthroplasty: results at 5-9 years of follow-up.

Authors:  Xiao-Dong Chen; James P Waddell; Jane Morton; Emil H Schemitsch
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2005-08-11       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  The cement-in-cement technique is a reliable option in hip arthroplasty revision surgery: a systematic review.

Authors:  Francisco Xará-Leite; Ana Daniela Pereira; Renato Andrade; André Sarmento; Ricardo Sousa; Olufemi R Ayeni; João Espregueira-Mendes; Daniel Soares
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2020-07-14

3.  A dual-mobility cup reduces risk of dislocation in isolated acetabular revisions.

Authors:  Roberto Civinini; Christian Carulli; Fabrizio Matassi; Lorenzo Nistri; Massimo Innocenti
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-06-15       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  Complications Are Not Increased With Acetabular Revision of Metal-on-metal Total Hip Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Colin T Penrose; Thorsten M Seyler; Samuel S Wellman; Michael P Bolognesi; Paul F Lachiewicz
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  The Survival of Well-Fixed Cementless Femoral Component After Isolated Acetabular Component Revision.

Authors:  Mehmet Ekinci; Yucel Bilgin; Yasin Sayar; Omer Naci Ergin; Ahmet Salduz; Turgut Akgul; Irfan Ozturk
Journal:  Indian J Orthop       Date:  2020-05-30       Impact factor: 1.251

6.  Two-year follow-up of revision total hip arthroplasty using a ceramic revision head with a retained well-fixed femoral component: a case series.

Authors:  Dirk Ganzer; Lutz Forke; Ulrich Irlenbusch
Journal:  J Med Case Rep       Date:  2014-12-17
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.