scholarly journals Long-term results of revision total hip arthroplasty with a cemented femoral component

2018 ◽  
Vol 138 (11) ◽  
pp. 1609-1616 ◽  
Author(s):  
Armin Pallaver ◽  
Lukas Zwicky ◽  
Lilianna Bolliger ◽  
Hans Bösebeck ◽  
Isabella Manzoni ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kai Zheng ◽  
Ning Li ◽  
Weicheng Zhang ◽  
Jun Zhou ◽  
Yaozeng Xu ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: Revision total hip arthroplasty is frequently accompanied by bone loss. The purpose of this study is to evaluate mid- to long-term results of revision total hip arthroplasty for massive femoral bone loss using cementless modular, fluted, tapered stems.Methods: During the period of 2007 to 2015 at a single hospital, 34 hips (33 patients) underwent primary revision surgery with cementless modular, fluted, tapered stems due to massive bone loss, and patients with prosthetic joint infection (PJI) or tumours were excluded. The hips were revised with the LINK MP (Waldemar Link, Hamburg, Germany) prosthesis. Bone loss was categorized by the Paprosky classification for prosthesis loosening and Vancouver classification for peri-prosthetic fracture. All revision bearing surfaces were ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC). Clinical outcomes, radiographic outcomes and survivorship were evaluated.Results: The mean follow-up was 9.1±2.5 years (range, 5-13 years). The Harris hip score was 43.6±11.5 preoperatively and maintained at 86.5±6.6 at the time of latest follow-up (p<0. 05). The X-ray showed bone ingrowth fixation in 30 hips (88%), fibrous stable fixation in 3 hips (9%) and instability in 1 hip (3%). The average stem subsidence was 3.9±2.2 mm (range, 1 to 10 mm). The survivorship of prostheses with re-revision for any reason was 95% (95% CI, 12.0 to 13.0) at the 10-year follow-up. Three (9%) re-revisions were needed, including 1 for aseptic loosening, 1 for dislocation and 1 for infection.Conclusions: The mid- to long-term results of revision total hip arthroplasty with the cementless modular, fluted, tapered stem (LINK MP stem) are encouraging for massive femoral bone loss.


2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (12) ◽  
pp. 3697-3702
Author(s):  
Charles N. Wallace ◽  
Justin S. Chang ◽  
Babar Kayani ◽  
Peter D. Moriarty ◽  
Jenni E. Tahmassebi ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (9) ◽  
pp. 2573-2580
Author(s):  
Brandon R. Bukowski ◽  
Nicholas J. Clark ◽  
Michael J. Taunton ◽  
Brett A. Freedman ◽  
Daniel J. Berry ◽  
...  

2001 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. 777-783 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Gramkow ◽  
T.H. Jensen ◽  
J.E. Varmarken ◽  
J.B. Retpen

1994 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 106
Author(s):  
Jeffrey Lawrence ◽  
Charles A. Engh ◽  
Grace E. Macalino

2021 ◽  
pp. 112070002110043
Author(s):  
Antonios A Koutalos ◽  
Sokratis Varitimidis ◽  
Konstantinos N Malizos ◽  
Theofilos Karachalios

Purpose: The aim of the study was to systematically evaluate clinical outcomes of tapered fluted stems, either monoblock or modular, in revision total hip arthroplasty. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science and Cochrane databases were systematically searched by 2 researchers. Clinical studies reporting primarily on survival and re-revision rates, and secondarily on subsidence, dislocation, intraoperative fractures, periprosthetic fractures and infection were included. 2 investigators assessed the quality of the studies. Results: 46 studies were included in this review, reporting on 4601 stem revisions. The pooled re-revision rate was 5.1% and long-term survival ranged from 75% to 98.5%. No differences were observed between monoblock and modular stems regarding re-revision rate, dislocation rate, periprosthetic fracture rate or infection rates. Monoblock stems exhibited more subsidence and modular stems displayed more intraoperative fractures. Conclusions: Satisfactory results can be obtained with the use of tapered fluted end-bearing stems. Monoblock stems offer the same clinical results as modular stems.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document