scholarly journals Experience in use of Wagner SL Revision Stem for Revision Hip Arthroplasty

2014 ◽  
pp. 40-45
Author(s):  
G. M. Kavalerskiy ◽  
V. Yu. Murylyov ◽  
Ya. A. Rukin ◽  
M. Yu. Kholodaev ◽  
P. M. Elizarov
Keyword(s):  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Femoral Stem ◽  
Revision Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Femoral Bone ◽  
Defect Type ◽  
Hip Implant ◽  
Femoral Defect ◽  
Revision Stem

Experience in revision hip arthroplasty with change of femoral stem was analyzed for 165 patients. In 107 operations (64.8%) Wagner SL Revision Stems were used, in the rest of cases - femoral components of other manufacturers. Distribution of patients by femoral defect type by Paprovsky was the following: I type - 27 patients, II type - 75, IIIA type - 59, IIIB and IV type - 4 patients. Good results at use of Wagner SL Revision Stems and stems of other manufacturers were comparable and made up 87.9 and 86.2%, respectively. Achieved data enabled to make conclusion that Wagner SL Revision Stem use is reasonable for patients with hip implant instability in I-IIIA femoral bone deficit, as they are cheaper than the modular revision stems and their design prevents the wear in the area of modular junction.

scholarly journals Experience in use of Wagner SL Revision Stem for Revision Hip Arthroplasty

2014 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 40-45
Author(s):  
G. M Kavalerskiy ◽  
V. Yu Murylyov ◽  
Ya. A Rukin ◽  
M. Yu Kholodaev ◽  
P. M Elizarov
Keyword(s):  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Femoral Stem ◽  
Revision Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Femoral Bone ◽  
Defect Type ◽  
Hip Implant ◽  
Femoral Defect ◽  
Revision Stem

Experience in revision hip arthroplasty with change of femoral stem was analyzed for 165 patients. In 107 operations (64.8%) Wagner SL Revision Stems were used, in the rest of cases - femoral components of other manufacturers. Distribution of patients by femoral defect type by Paprovsky was the following: I type - 27 patients, II type - 75, IIIA type - 59, IIIB and IV type - 4 patients. Good results at use of Wagner SL Revision Stems and stems of other manufacturers were comparable and made up 87.9 and 86.2%, respectively. Achieved data enabled to make conclusion that Wagner SL Revision Stem use is reasonable for patients with hip implant instability in I-IIIA femoral bone deficit, as they are cheaper than the modular revision stems and their design prevents the wear in the area of modular junction.

Revision Hip Arthroplasty with an Extensively Porous-coated Stem - Excellent Long-term Results Also in Severe Femoral Bone Stock Loss

2013 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 352-358 ◽  
Author(s):  
Per B. Thomsen ◽  
Niels J.F. Jensen ◽  
Jens Kampmann ◽  
Torben Bæk Hansen
Keyword(s):  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Revision Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Long Term Results ◽  
Bone Stock ◽  
Femoral Bone

Results of Revision Hip Arthroplasty using Cemented Femoral Stem

2007 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 472 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joong Myung Lee ◽  
Jae Young Roh ◽  
Young Soo Park
Keyword(s):  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Femoral Stem ◽  
Revision Hip Arthroplasty

scholarly journals Proximal Femoral Allograft for Major Segmental Femoral Bone Loss: A Systematic Literature Review

2011 ◽  
Vol 2011 ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. A. Rogers ◽  
A. Sternheim ◽  
D. Backstein ◽  
O. Safir ◽  
A. E. Gross
Keyword(s):  
Bone Loss ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Surgical Techniques ◽  
Stress Shielding ◽  
Review Article ◽  
Revision Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Femoral Bone ◽  
Endoprosthetic Reconstruction ◽  
Press Fit ◽  
Impaction Allografting

As the indications for total hip arthroplasty increase, the prevalence of extensive proximal femoral bone loss will increase as a consequence of massive osteolysis, stress shielding and multiple revisions. Proximal femoral bone stock deficiency provides a major challenge for revision hip arthroplasty and is likely to account for a significant future caseload. Various surgical techniques have been advocated included impaction allografting, distal press-fit fixation and massive endoprosthetic reconstruction. This review article provides a systematic review of the current literature to assess the outcome of revision hip arthroplasty using allograft to reconstruction massive proximal femoral bone loss.

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 ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Femoral Stem ◽  
Revision Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Cementless Femoral Stem

scholarly journals Strut grafts in revision hip arthroplasty faced with femoral bone defects: an experimental analysis

2014 ◽  
Vol 38 (6) ◽  
pp. 1147-1153 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan Kinkel ◽  
Marc N. Thomsen ◽  
Jan Nadorf ◽  
Christian Heisel ◽  
Michael C. Tanner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Experimental Analysis ◽  
Bone Defects ◽  
Revision Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Femoral Bone

Conversion of a Long Distally Fixed Uncemented Revision Femoral Stem to a Proximally Fixed Implant following Fatigue Fracture

2011 ◽  
Vol 21 (6) ◽  
pp. 766-769 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter S. Young ◽  
Rory G. Middleton ◽  
Ian D. Learmonth ◽  
Tahawwar Hasnat A. Minhas
Keyword(s):  
Fatigue Fracture ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Revision Surgery ◽  
Revision Arthroplasty ◽  
Femoral Stem ◽  
Revision Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Hip Revision ◽  
Clear Cut ◽  
Younger Patient ◽  
Primary Hip Arthroplasty

There has been increasing focus on bone conservation through proximal fixation in primary hip arthroplasty. However, the debate regarding fixation in revision arthroplasty and which factors influence implant choice remains less clear-cut. We report a case involving fatigue fracture of a long, distally well-fixed, uncemented revision stem. This was revised to a proximally fixed implant. This case highlights a number of issues when considering the choice of implant in hip revision surgery and raises the issue of bone conservation in revision surgery. We would suggest that in both primary and revision hip arthroplasty meticulous pre-operative consideration of the choice of implant should be undertaken, especially in the younger patient with higher expectations and functional demands.

scholarly journals Clinical outcomes and survival rate of cementless modular distal fixation femoral stem for revision hip arthroplasty: A minimum 6-year follow-up

2018 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 230949901881224 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joon Soon Kang ◽  
Yeop Na ◽  
Bong Seong Ko ◽  
Yoon Sang Jeon
Keyword(s):  
Survival Rate ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Periprosthetic Fracture ◽  
Femoral Stem ◽  
Revision Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Distal Fixation

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document