Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Using a Tapered, Press-Fit Cementless Revision Stem in Elderly Patients

2011 ◽  
Vol 26 (7) ◽  
pp. 1045-1049 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jun-Dong Chang ◽  
Tae-Young Kim ◽  
Murari Bhaskar Rao ◽  
Sang-‑Soo Lee ◽  
In-Sung Kim
Keyword(s):  
Total Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Elderly Patients ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
Revision Stem ◽  
Press Fit

scholarly journals Structural and Morselized Allografting Combined with a Cementless Cup for Acetabular Defects in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A 4- to 14-Year Follow-Up

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hou-Tsung Chen ◽  
Cheng-Ta Wu ◽  
Tsan-Wen Huang ◽  
Hsin-Nung Shih ◽  
Jun-Wen Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Total Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Type Ii ◽  
Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
Press Fit ◽  
Cementless Cup ◽  
Revision Tha ◽  
Acetabular Defects

Using morselized and structural allograft to restore bone stock for massive acetabular bone defect in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) is an appealing procedure. However, concerns about inability to achieve long-term stability following allograft resorption remained. From 2003 to 2012, 59 hips in 58 patients undergoing revision THA for Paprosky type II or III acetabular defects were retrospectively reviewed. The acetabular defects were managed with deep-frozen morselized and structural allografts, and a press-fit cementless cup along with supplementary screws. Clinical outcomes and radiographic results were analyzed with a mean follow-up of 8.7 years. The clinical successful rate was 100% for hips with Paprosky type II defect, 95.2% for IIIA defect, and 92.8% for IIIB defect. Three hips with type III defect failed at 4, 7, and 9 years, respectively. Harris Hip Score improved significantly from 60.1 preoperatively to 91.3 at the latest follow-up. All hips with good clinical results showed trabecular bridging in the allograft-host bone interface. Deep-frozen structural and morselized allograft in combination with a press-fit cementless cup represented a viable option to reconstruct acetabular defects in revision THA.

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

Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Using a Wagner Revision Stem

2010 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 137 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yee-Suk Kim ◽  
Chang-Min Cho ◽  
Kyu-Tae Hwang ◽  
Young-Ho Kim ◽  
Il-Yong Choi
Keyword(s):  
Total Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
Revision Stem

Clinical, functional and radiographic outcomes after revision total hip arthroplasty with tapered fluted modular or non-modular stems: a systematic review

2021 ◽  
pp. 112070002110043
Author(s):  
Antonios A Koutalos ◽  
Sokratis Varitimidis ◽  
Konstantinos N Malizos ◽  
Theofilos Karachalios
Keyword(s):  
Total Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Revision Rate ◽  
Clinical Results ◽  
Fracture Rate ◽  
Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
Radiographic Outcomes

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