Early clinical and radiological outcomes of a new tapered fluted titanium monobloc revision stem in hip arthroplasty

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Moriarty ◽  
Georges Vles ◽  
Fares Haddad ◽  
Sujith Konan
Keyword(s):  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Revision Stem

scholarly journals Experience in use of Wagner SL Revision Stem for Revision Hip Arthroplasty

2014 ◽  
pp. 40-45
Author(s):  
G. M. Kavalerskiy ◽  
V. Yu. Murylyov ◽  
Ya. A. Rukin ◽  
M. Yu. Kholodaev ◽  
P. M. Elizarov
Keyword(s):  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Femoral Stem ◽  
Revision Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Femoral Bone ◽  
Defect Type ◽  
Hip Implant ◽  
Femoral Defect ◽  
Revision Stem

Experience in revision hip arthroplasty with change of femoral stem was analyzed for 165 patients. In 107 operations (64.8%) Wagner SL Revision Stems were used, in the rest of cases - femoral components of other manufacturers. Distribution of patients by femoral defect type by Paprovsky was the following: I type - 27 patients, II type - 75, IIIA type - 59, IIIB and IV type - 4 patients. Good results at use of Wagner SL Revision Stems and stems of other manufacturers were comparable and made up 87.9 and 86.2%, respectively. Achieved data enabled to make conclusion that Wagner SL Revision Stem use is reasonable for patients with hip implant instability in I-IIIA femoral bone deficit, as they are cheaper than the modular revision stems and their design prevents the wear in the area of modular junction.

The Wagner SL-Revision Stem for Aseptic Loosening: Clinical and Radiological Results 5 to 7 Years after Femoral Revision

2003 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 94-100
Author(s):  
M.J.F. Diks ◽  
M. Spruit ◽  
J.J. Reimering ◽  
F. Den Boer ◽  
P.G. Anderson
Keyword(s):  
Total Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Bone Loss ◽  
Aseptic Loosening ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Primary Stability ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
Radiological Evaluation ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
Revision Stem

Aseptic loosening in total hip arthroplasty can lead to proximal femoral periprosthetic bone loss. The non-cemented Wagner revision stem achieves primary fixation in the diaphysis. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the results after medium- to long-term follow-up of the Wagner prosthesis for revision of the femoral component for aseptic loosening in total hip arthroplasty with proximal femoral bone loss. We performed 53 femoral revisions for aseptic loosening with the non-cemented Wagner revision stem. Clinical assessment included a modified Harris Hip Score and a radiological evaluation. The mean follow-up was 65 months. The Harris Hip Score improved significantly (42.9 to 72.3). Radiological evaluation revealed 24.5% subsidence (>5 mm) in our population. Nine re-revisions were done, eight in the first post-operative year. The re-revisions were performed for progressive subsidence (five), recurrent dislocations (one), subsidence with low-grade infection (one), false route (one), and aseptic loosening after 75 months (one). The cumulative survival rate of the Wagner stem after 12 months was 85% and 76% after 75 months. A relatively high re-revision rate was observed during the first post-operative year. Analysis of these failures has shown that subsidence may be the result of insufficient primary stability. Adequate pre-operative planning and intra-operative radiological assistance is necessary for perfect primary stability and fixation of the Wagner stem. The re-revision incidence after the first 12 months is 0.45 per 100 implants per year. The prosthesis has good survival potential after proper introduction.

scholarly journals Early outcomes after revision total hip arthroplasty with a modern modular femoral revision stem in 65 consecutive cases

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 106-112 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher E. Pelt ◽  
Marissa L. Stagg ◽  
Christin Van Dine ◽  
Mike B. Anderson ◽  
Christopher L. Peters ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Total Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Femoral Revision ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
Revision Stem

The different failure modes of the connecting elements of the modular hip arthroplasty revision stem Revitan

2021 ◽  
pp. 104778
Author(s):  
Christopher Butler Ransohoff ◽  
Ronald Wanner ◽  
Theo Solinger ◽  
Emanuel Gautier ◽  
Henk Eijer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Failure Modes ◽  
Revision Stem ◽  
Arthroplasty Revision

scholarly journals Experience in use of Wagner SL Revision Stem for Revision Hip Arthroplasty

2014 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 40-45
Author(s):  
G. M Kavalerskiy ◽  
V. Yu Murylyov ◽  
Ya. A Rukin ◽  
M. Yu Kholodaev ◽  
P. M Elizarov
Keyword(s):  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Femoral Stem ◽  
Revision Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Femoral Bone ◽  
Defect Type ◽  
Hip Implant ◽  
Femoral Defect ◽  
Revision Stem

Experience in revision hip arthroplasty with change of femoral stem was analyzed for 165 patients. In 107 operations (64.8%) Wagner SL Revision Stems were used, in the rest of cases - femoral components of other manufacturers. Distribution of patients by femoral defect type by Paprovsky was the following: I type - 27 patients, II type - 75, IIIA type - 59, IIIB and IV type - 4 patients. Good results at use of Wagner SL Revision Stems and stems of other manufacturers were comparable and made up 87.9 and 86.2%, respectively. Achieved data enabled to make conclusion that Wagner SL Revision Stem use is reasonable for patients with hip implant instability in I-IIIA femoral bone deficit, as they are cheaper than the modular revision stems and their design prevents the wear in the area of modular junction.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document