Results of Cemented Femur Components Application at Total Hip Revision Arthroplasty

2012 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 32-38
Author(s):  
N. V Zagorodniy ◽  
V. I Nuzhdin ◽  
K. M Bukhtin ◽  
S. V Kagramanov
Keyword(s):  
Revision Arthroplasty ◽  
Treatment Results ◽  
Indication For Surgery ◽  
Hip Revision ◽  
Hip Revision Arthroplasty ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
Level 1 ◽  
Type 3 ◽  
Fatigue Fractures

Treatment results for 114 total hip revision arthroplasties (1992—2011) with cemented femur components were analyzed. The most common indication for surgery was aseptic instability of hip implant. In 1 st group (42 operations) cemented stems Bi-Metric (Biomet Orthopaedics) and in 2 nd group (72 operations) cemented stems ESI (Endoservis) were used. Surgical technique was described and causes of complication development were analyzed. Mean follow-up made up 11 years. In the 1 st group excellent results were achieved in 2 (4.76%) cases, good in 34 (80.95%), satisfactory in 3 (7.14%) and poor in 3 (7.14%) cases. In the 2 nd group corresponding results were achieved in 3 (4.17%), 47 (65.28%), 15 (20.83%) and 7(9.72) respectively. Analysis of the reasons for complication development was performed. It was stated that femur defects of type 3 on level 1 by AAOS classification resulted in fatigue fractures of cemented revision stems.

Results of Monolithic and Modular Femoral Components Use at Total Hip Revision Arthroplasty

2013 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 18-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. V Zagorodniy ◽  
V. I Nuzhdin ◽  
K. M Bukhtin ◽  
S. V Kagramanov
Keyword(s):  
Revision Arthroplasty ◽  
Study Groups ◽  
Good Alternative ◽  
Hip Revision ◽  
Hip Revision Arthroplasty ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
Distal Migration ◽  
Poor Treatment ◽  
Distal Fixation

Results of 28 total hip revision arthroplasties using distal fixation stems were analyzed. In 18 operations revision stems Wagner SL (1 st group) and in 10 interventions modular revision stems Cerafit revision (2 nd group) were used. Mean follow up period made up 3 years. Course of operation and peculiarities of bone canal treatment prior to stem implantation were described in detail. In 1 st group excellent results were achieved in 2 (11.11%), good in 8 (44.44%) satisfactory in 4 (22.22%) and poor in 4 (22.22%) of patients. In 2 nd group in 2 (20%), 4 (40%), 3 (30%) and 1 (10%) patient, respectively. Poor treatment outcomes resulted from suppuration and distal migration offemoral component. Rate of intraoperative femur cracks and fractures for two study groups was not higher than at revision arthroplasty using other implants. Taking into account intraoperative advantages the use of modular femoral components in complicated cases is a good alternative to monolithic stems.

scholarly journals Spontaneous dissociation in total hip revision arthroplasty at the femoral head–neck interface

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Schuh ◽  
Ralph Schuh ◽  
Albert Fujak ◽  
Wolfgang Hönle ◽  
Sandeep Kashyap
Keyword(s):  
Femoral Head ◽  
Revision Arthroplasty ◽  
Hip Revision ◽  
Hip Revision Arthroplasty ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
Head Neck

Removal of well-fixed or porous-coated cementless stems in total hip revision arthroplasty

2002 ◽  
Vol 122 (1) ◽  
pp. 48-50 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Schmidt ◽  
M. Porsch ◽  
C. Sulk ◽  
J. Hillekamp ◽  
T. Schneider
Keyword(s):  
Revision Arthroplasty ◽  
Hip Revision ◽  
Hip Revision Arthroplasty ◽  
Total Hip

Constrained Acetabular Liners Cemented Into Cages During Total Hip Revision Arthroplasty

2010 ◽  
Vol 25 (6) ◽  
pp. 901-905 ◽  
Author(s):  
John I. Khoury ◽  
Arthur L. Malkani ◽  
Edward M. Adler ◽  
David C. Markel
Keyword(s):  
Revision Arthroplasty ◽  
Hip Revision ◽  
Hip Revision Arthroplasty ◽  
Total Hip

Minimum 5-Year Follow-Up of a Cementless, Modular, Tapered Stem in Hip Revision Arthroplasty

2011 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 16-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rüdiger J. Weiss ◽  
Mats O. Beckman ◽  
Anders Enocson ◽  
Anders Schmalholz ◽  
André Stark
Keyword(s):  
Revision Arthroplasty ◽  
Hip Revision ◽  
Hip Revision Arthroplasty ◽  
Tapered Stem

Total Hip Revision Arthroplasty

1982 ◽  
Vol &NA; (170) ◽  
pp. 88???94 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. T. R. JAMES ◽  
G. A. HUNTER ◽  
H. U. CAMERON
Keyword(s):  
Revision Arthroplasty ◽  
Hip Revision ◽  
Hip Revision Arthroplasty ◽  
Total Hip
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document