Revision Hip Arthroplasty Using a Modular, Cementless Femoral Stem: Intermediate-Term Follow-Up

2017 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 1245-1249 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sureshan Sivananthan ◽  
Chin-Tat Lim ◽  
Rapeepat Narkbunnam ◽  
Alex Sox-Harris ◽  
James I. Huddleston ◽  
...  
2017 ◽  
Vol 99-B (1) ◽  
pp. 29-36 ◽  
Author(s):  
I. De Martino ◽  
V. De Santis ◽  
R. D’ Apolito ◽  
P. K. Sculco ◽  
M. B. Cross ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 230949901881224 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joon Soon Kang ◽  
Yeop Na ◽  
Bong Seong Ko ◽  
Yoon Sang Jeon

Purpose: Revision hip arthroplasty is a very challenging procedure. Use of a modular distal fixation stem is one of the available options for revision arthroplasty in patients with proximal femoral bone deficiency. The purpose of this study was to evaluate mid- to long-term outcomes of cementless modular distal fixation femoral stem implantation in revision hip surgery. Methods: Clinical and radiological findings, complications, and stem survival rate were analyzed for 46 patients (48 hips) who underwent revision hip arthroplasty using a cementless modular distal fixation femoral stem. The mean patient age was 58.8 years (range 31–82 years) and the mean follow-up period was 95 months (72–122 months). The preoperative diagnoses were aseptic loosening (36 hips), infection (4 hips), ceramic fracture (4 hips), and femoral periprosthetic fracture (4 hips). Results: The mean Harris hip score improved from 56.6 preoperatively to 88.2 postoperatively at the last follow-up. All hips showed stable osteointegration and firm fixation. Complications involved four hips (8.3%); there was one case each of periprosthetic fracture, delayed union of osteotomy site, femoral perforation, and infection. One stem re-revision was performed for deep infection of the femoral side. The Kaplan–Meier survival rate was 97.6% at the final follow-up. Conclusion: Revision hip arthroplasty using a cementless modular distal fixation femoral stem showed satisfactory initial firm fixation and mid- to long-term survival rate. Complications can be minimized by careful surgical planning and meticulous procedure.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amit Singh ◽  
Sunirmal Mukherjee ◽  
Kuntal Patel ◽  
Deepak Herlekar ◽  
Srikant Gandavaram ◽  
...  

Abstract Background The extraction of a femoral stem during the revision hip arthroplasty can be a daunting task and can lead to catastrophic complications for the patient. A sound technique employed intraoperatively helps in speedy recovery of the patient and reduces the risk of future surgical interventions. In this study, we present a medium-term outcome of our novel Lancaster Cortical Window technique which can be used for removal of cemented or uncemented femoral stems. Methodology The study was conducted at a specialist centre in the North-West of the UK from January 2014 to May 2019. This is a retrospective case series where patients were treated surgically using Lancaster Cortical Window technique for removal of femoral implant during a revision hip arthroplasty. Patient’s electronic notes and the radiographs were used to evaluate the functional and radiological outcome. Results In this study, 18 patients were managed surgically using Novel Lancaster Window technique. The mean age of the all the patients was 81.5 years and the male to female ratio was 10:8. Fifteen patients underwent revision surgery for aseptic loosening of the femoral and acetabular component. Rest of the three patients had revision surgery for a broken femoral stem, intraoperative femoral canal perforation while implanting a total hip replacement femoral stem and infection. Twelve femurs were replanted with uncemented long femoral stems and six with long cemented stems. The cortical window osteotomy united in all the patients in 4.2 months (mean). The mean follow up of these patients is 20.9 months, and none of them had any implant subsidence or loosening at the time of their last follow up. Conclusion We believe Lancaster cortical window technique can be safely used for removal of cemented stems during revision hip arthroplasty without the need for expensive equipment’s.


2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Amit Singh ◽  
Sunirmal Mukherjee ◽  
Kuntal Patel ◽  
Deepak Herlekar ◽  
Srikant Gandavaram ◽  
...  

Abstract Background The extraction of a femoral stem during the revision hip arthroplasty can be a daunting task and can lead to catastrophic complications for the patient. A sound technique employed intraoperatively helps in the speedy recovery of the patient and reduces the risk of future surgical interventions. In this study, we present a medium-term outcome of our novel Lancaster cortical window technique which can be used for the removal of cemented or uncemented femoral stems. Methods The study was conducted at a specialist centre in the north-west of the UK from January 2014 to May 2019. This is a retrospective case series where patients were treated surgically using the Lancaster cortical window technique for removal of the femoral implant during a revision hip arthroplasty. Patient’s electronic notes and radiographs were used to evaluate the functional and radiological outcome. Results In this study, 18 patients were managed surgically using the novel Lancaster window technique. The mean age of all the patients was 81.5 years, and the male to female ratio was 10:8. Fifteen patients underwent revision surgery for aseptic loosening of the femoral and acetabular components. The rest of the three patients had revision surgery for a broken femoral stem, intraoperative femoral canal perforation while implanting a total hip replacement femoral stem and infection. Twelve femurs were replanted with uncemented long femoral stems and six with long cemented stems. The cortical window osteotomy united in all the patients in 4.2 months (mean). The mean follow-up of these patients is 20.9 months, and none of them had any implant subsidence or loosening at the time of their last follow-up. Conclusion We believe Lancaster cortical window technique can be safely used for the removal of cemented stems during revision hip arthroplasty without the need for expensive equipment.


2021 ◽  
pp. 221049172098511
Author(s):  
Liu Wing Hong ◽  
Chung Kwong Yin ◽  
Cheung Kin Wing ◽  
Chiu Kwok Hing ◽  
Ho Ki Wai Kevin

Extensively coated long femoral stem revision hip arthroplasty is based on the principle of distal fixation at diaphyseal region, which can overcome the problem of proximal femoral bone stock deficiencies causing inadequate support and unstable fixation when using conventional length femoral stem. We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of 43 cases of revision hip arthroplasties using extensively hydroxyapatite-coated long femoral stem performed in our department from Jan 1998 to Dec 2005. Patients’ background demographic data, operative details and clinical outcome were analyzed. The mean age at revision surgery was 63.7 (32–84). The mean follow-up period was of 13.8 years (11–17.5 years). In the latest follow up, all patients reported either no or mild hip or thigh pain. 29.2% of patients were able to walk unaided, 25.0% were able to walk with stick, and 33.3% were able to walk with quadripod. The average Harris hip score measured in the latest follow up was 78.8 (55–100). 4.7% were complicated with implant loosening requiring re-revision and 4.7% were complicated with implant infection requiring implant removal. The survival rate was 89.9% at 17.5 years. The femoral stem without femoral fixation augmentation had better survivorship as compared with those with augmentation (p = 0.038). Extensively hydroxyapatite-coated long femoral stem is a good option for revision hip arthroplasty with good clinical outcome and high survival rate.


Hip & Pelvis ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 260
Author(s):  
Young-Yool Chung ◽  
Chae-Hyun Lim ◽  
Chung-Young Kim ◽  
Jeong-Seok Kim

2005 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 38-45
Author(s):  
D. Hernández-Vaquero ◽  
A. Suarez-Vazquez ◽  
M. Cima-Suarez ◽  
M. A. Garcia-Sandoval ◽  
R. Gava

2018 ◽  
Vol 139 (1) ◽  
pp. 121-126 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc Dominique Horsthemke ◽  
Christoph Koenig ◽  
Georg Gosheger ◽  
Jendrik Hardes ◽  
Steffen Hoell

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document