scholarly journals Trochanteric osteotomy in revision total hip arthroplasty

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (8) ◽  
pp. 477-485
Author(s):  
Kavin Sundaram ◽  
Ahmed Siddiqi ◽  
Atul F. Kamath ◽  
Carlos A. Higuera-Rueda

Trochanteric osteotomy is a technique that allows expanded exposure and access to the femoral canal and acetabulum for a number of indications. There has been renewed interest in variants of this technique, including the trochanteric slide osteotomy (TSO), extended trochanter osteotomy (ETO), and the transfemoral approach, for both septic and aseptic revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). Osteotomy fixation is crucial for achieving union, and wire and cable-plate systems are the most common techniques. TSO involves the creation of a greater trochanter fragment with preserved abductor attachment proximally and vastus lateralis attachment distally. This technique may be particularly useful in the setting of abductor deficiency or when augmented acetabular exposure is needed. ETO is a posterior-laterally based extensile approach that has been successfully utilized for aseptic and septic indications; most series report a greater than 90% rate of union. The transfemoral approach, as known as the Wagner osteotomy, is an extensile femoral approach and is more anterior-based than the alternate posterior-based ETO. It may be particularly useful for anterior-based approaches and anterior femoral remodelling; rates of union after this approach in most reports have been close to 100%. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2020;5:477-485. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.190063

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (11) ◽  
pp. 3410-3416
Author(s):  
Michael-Alexander Malahias ◽  
Ioannis Gkiatas ◽  
Nicolas A. Selemon ◽  
Roberto De Filippis ◽  
Alex Gu ◽  
...  

2000 ◽  
Vol 82 (9) ◽  
pp. 1215-1219 ◽  
Author(s):  
WEI-MING CHEN ◽  
JAMES P. McAULEY ◽  
C. ANDERSON ENGH ◽  
ROBERT H. HOPPER ◽  
CHARLES A. ENGH

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

2016 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 842-845 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chad D. Watts ◽  
Matthew T. Houdek ◽  
Eric R. Wagner ◽  
David G. Lewallen ◽  
Tad M. Mabry

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.


2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Amer Mohiuddin, BS ◽  
Justin Rice, BA ◽  
Mary Ziemba-Davis, BA ◽  
R. Michael Meneghini, MD

Background and Hypothesis: Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI is a leading cause of failure after aseptic revision total hip arthroplasty (RTHA). While well documented in the primary setting, perioperative antibiotic duration is not well described in RTHA where the risk of PJI was recently reported to be 8% one-year post-revision. The study purpose was to evaluate whether extended oral antibiotic prophylactic protocol minimizes PJI in aseptic RTHA patients compared to the published literature.   Project Methods: 169 consecutive aseptic RTHAs performed with modern perioperative and infection-prevention protocols by a single surgeon at a single center were retrospectively reviewed. 80% of patients were discharged on 7-day oral antibiotic prophylaxis while intra-operative cultures were incubating. Infections and reoperations were documented.   Results: Average age and BMI were 63 years and 30 kg/m2.  67% percent of patients were ASA-III/IV, signifying the severity of comorbidities in this revision cohort. There we no cases of PJI in the 90-day postoperative period. Ninety-eight percent of cases were infection free at mean follow-up of 45 months. Three (1.8%) cases underwent reoperation for deep infection at 110, 161 and 581 days.    Conclusion and Potential Impact: Our observed infection rate of 0.0% is lower than published infection rates following RTHA and a 1.5% infection rate in primary THA in patients with no identifiable risk factors for PJI.  Based on this clinically meaningful decrease in PJI in this challenging cohort, we encourage further study regarding extended antibiotic protocol weighed appropriately against potential consequences.   


2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (11) ◽  
pp. 2718-2723 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sebastián A. León ◽  
Xin Y. Mei ◽  
Ethan B. Sanders ◽  
Oleg A. Safir ◽  
Allan E. Gross ◽  
...  

2003 ◽  
Vol 85-B (4) ◽  
pp. 510-516 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. Langlais ◽  
J. C. Lambotte ◽  
Ph. Collin ◽  
F. Langlois ◽  
J. W. Fontaine ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document