scholarly journals Removing Well-Fixed, Collared and Noncollared Tapered Hip Stems Without an Extended Trochanteric Osteotomy Using a Novel Stem Removal System

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 146-150
Author(s):  
Kevin M. Sagers ◽  
Jonathan D. Creech ◽  
John S. Shields ◽  
David C. Pollock ◽  
Maxwell K. Langfitt ◽  
...  
2005 ◽  
Vol 87 (3) ◽  
pp. 521-529 ◽  
Author(s):  
ANDREW R. NOBLE ◽  
DANIEL B. BRANHAM ◽  
MARK C. WILLIS ◽  
JOHN R. OWEN ◽  
BENJAMIN W. CRAMER ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew P. Abdel ◽  
Cody C. Wyles ◽  
Anthony Viste ◽  
Kevin I. Perry ◽  
Robert T. Trousdale ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 104-112 ◽  
Author(s):  
Konrad Sebastian Wronka ◽  
Michell Gerard-Wilson ◽  
Elizabeth Peel ◽  
Ola Rolfson ◽  
Peter Herman Johan Cnudde

This review article presents a comprehensive literature review regarding extended trochanteric osteotomy (ETO). The history, rationale, biomechanical considerations as well as indications are discussed. The outcomes and complications as reported in the literature are presented, discussed and compared with our own practice. Based on the available evidence, we present our preferred technique for performing ETO, its fixation, as well as post-operative rehabilitation. The ETO aids implant removal and enhanced access. Reported union rate of ETO is high. The complications related to ETO are much less frequent than in cases when accidental intra-operative femoral fracture occurred that required fixation. Based on the literature and our own experience we recommend ETO as a useful adjunct in the arsenal of the revision hip specialist. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2020;5:104-112. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.190005


2010 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 102-108 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dror Lakstein ◽  
Yona Kosashvili ◽  
David Backstein ◽  
Oleg Safir ◽  
Allan E. Gross

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 36
Author(s):  
Sebastian Hardt ◽  
Vincent Justus Leopold ◽  
Thilo Khakzad ◽  
Matthias Pumberger ◽  
Carsten Perka ◽  
...  

Background: This study sought to compare the results of two-stage revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) for periprosthetic infection (PJI) in patients with and without the use of an extended trochanteric osteotomy (ETO) for removal of a well-fixed femoral stem or cement. Methods: Thirty-two patients who had undergone an ETO as part of a two-stage revision without spacer placement were matched 1:2 with a cohort of sixty-four patients of the same sex and age who had stem removal without any osteotomy. Clinical outcomes including interim revision, reinfection and aseptic failure rates were evaluated. Modified Harris hip scores (mHHS) were calculated. Minimum follow-up was two years. Results: Patients undergoing ETO had a significantly lower rate of interim re-debridement compared to non-ETO patients (0% vs. 14.1%, p = 0.026). Reinfection following reimplantation was similar in both groups (12.5% in ETO patients vs. 9.4% in non-ETO patients, p = 0.365). Revision for aseptic reason was necessary in 12.5% in the ETO group and 14.1% in the non-ETO group (p = 0.833). Periprosthetic femoral fractures were seen in three patients (3.1%), of which all occurred in non-ETO patients. Dislocation was the most common complication, which was equally distributed in both groups (12.5%). The mean mHHS was 37.7 in the ETO group and 37.3 in the non-ETO group, and these scores improved significantly in both groups following reimplantation (p < 0.01). Conclusion: ETO without the use of spacer is a safe and effective method to manage patients with well-fixed femoral stems and for thorough cement removal in two-stage revision THA for PJI. While it might reduce the rate of repeated debridement in the interim period, the use of ETO appears to lead to similar reinfection rates following reimplantation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document