A Role for Modern Primary Cementless Femoral Stems in Revision Hip Arthroplasty

BackgroundIn revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) cases with preserved femoral metaphyseal bone, tapered proximally porous-coated “primary” femoral stems may be an option. The objective of this study was to compare outcomes of patients with Paprosky I or II femoral bone loss undergoing revision THA with either a primary metaphyseal-engaging cementless stem or a revision diaphyseal-engaging stem.MethodsThis was a retrospective analysis of 70 patients with Paprosky I or II femoral bone loss who underwent femoral revision. 35 patients who were revised using a primary cementless femoral stem were compared with 35 patients who underwent femoral revision using a revision diaphyseal-engaging stem. The groups were similar regarding age, gender, body mass index, and American Society of Anesthesiologists. Clinical and radiographic outcomes and complications were compared over an average follow-up of 2.9 years (SD 1.4).ResultsRevision THA was most commonly performed for periprosthetic joint infection (N = 27, 38.6%). The groups were similar with regards to Paprosky femoral classification (P = .56), length of stay (P = .68), discharge disposition (P = .461), operative time (P = .20), and complications (P = .164). There were no significant differences between primary and revision femoral stem subsidence (0.12 vs. 0.75 mm, P = .18), leg length discrepancy (2.3 vs. 4.05 mm, P = .37), and Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Jr (73.1 [SD 21.1] vs. 62.8 [SD 21.7], P = .088). No patient underwent additional revision surgery involving the femoral component.ConclusionUse of modern primary cementless femoral stems is a viable option for revision hip arthroplasty in the setting of preserved proximal femoral metaphyseal bone. Outcomes are not inferior to those of revision stems and offer potential benefits.     

Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of a Monoblock Fluted Titanium-Tapered Stem for Paprosky IIIa,IIIb, and IV Femoral Bone Defects

BackgroundModern fluted titanium-tapered stems (FTTS) have been increasingly utilized to achieve primary stability in conversion and revision total hip arthroplasty with major femoral bone loss. This study sought to determine the radiographic and clinical outcomes of a monoblock FTTS in patients who had major femoral bone loss.MethodsA multicenter retrospective observational study of all total hip arthroplasty patients who received a monoblock FTTS who had up to 5-year radiographic follow-up was conducted. Only patients with femoral Paprosky classifications of IIIa, IIIb, and IV were included. Eighty-one monoblock FTTS were examined. Median clinical follow-up was 29 months (range, 18 to 58). Stem subsidence and loosening were assessed on most recent radiographs. All-cause revisions and stem survivals were assessed.ResultsMedian subsidence was 1.4 millimeters (mm) (range, 0 to 15.0). Sixteen (23.9%) and 3 (4.5%) stems had subsidence greater than 5 and 10 mm, respectively. All stems not acutely revised appeared stable, without evidence of loosening, at latest follow-up. Ten hips (12.3%) required reoperations. Of these, only 5 (6.2%) stems were removed; 4 due to periprosthetic joint infection and 1 for surgical exposure during acetabular revision. Kaplan–Meier analyses yielded an all-cause stem survivorship of 95.1% at 2-years and 87.1% at 4-years. Stem survivorships excluding septic causes was 98.8% at both 2 and 4 years.ConclusionMonoblock FTTS in complex femoral reconstruction cases showed encouraging clinical and radiographic results in patients who had severe femoral bone loss at median 29 months follow-up.     

Long-Term Outcomes of Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Using a Tapered and Fluted Modular Stem: A Mean Follow-Up of 16 Years

BackgroundTapered modular stems are increasingly used in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) with deficient femoral bone stock. This study aimed to report the long-term outcomes of revision THA using a tapered and fluted modular stem.MethodsBetween December 1998 and February 2006, 113 revision THAs (110 patients) were performed with a tapered and fluted modular stem at a single institution. Hip radiographs were used to identify stem subsidence, stability, and femoral radiolucency. Final outcomes were assessed in 72 hips (70 patients), with a minimum follow-up of 10 years.ResultsThe mean follow-up duration was 16 years (range, 10-23). At the final evaluation, the Harris Hip Score improved from a mean of 41 points (range, 10-72) preoperatively to 83 points (range, 56-100) (P < .001). Six femoral re-revisions were performed for the following reasons: 1 aseptic loosening, 2 stem fractures, and 3 infections. One stem fracture occurred at the modular junction after 14 years, and the other at a more distal location after 15 years. Stem subsidence was >5 mm in 6 hips (9.1%), but secondary stability was achieved in all stems. Osseointegration was observed in 63 (95.5%) hips. Stem survivorship was 91.1% with an end point of any re-revision and 94.6% for aseptic re-revision.ConclusionA tapered and fluted modular stem demonstrated excellent implant survivorship with reliable bony fixation at a mean follow-up of 16 years. This type of stem can be a durable option for revision THA in patients who have femoral defects.     

Modern Revision Femoral Stem Designs Have No Difference in Rates of Subsidence

BackgroundBoth modular and monoblock tapered fluted titanium (TFT) stems have gained popularity over fully porous-coated cylindrical (FPCC) femoral stem designs, but limited data exist comparing subsidence rates following revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). The purpose of this study is to determine differences in subsidence and clinical outcomes among 3 revision femoral stem designs.MethodsWe reviewed a consecutive series of 335 patients who underwent femoral component revision to a cementless modular TFT (n = 225), monoblock TFT (n = 63), or FPCC (n = 47) stem between 2012 and 2019. We evaluated radiographic subsidence rates, re-revision rates, and patient-reported outcomes between the 3 stems. A multivariate regression analysis was performed to determine the independent effect of stem type on the risk of subsidence >5 mm.ResultsAt an average follow-up of 39 months (range, 12 to 96 months), there were no differences in mean subsidence rates (3.5 vs 2.4 vs 2.1 mm, P = .14), HOOS Jr scores (78 vs 74 vs 64 points, P = .15), or aseptic re-revision rates (4% vs 3% vs 0%, P = .29) between modular TFT, monoblock TFT, and FPCC stems. Although modular TFT stems were more often used in patients with extensive femoral bone loss (Paprosky III and IV), there were no differences in subsidence rates >5 mm among the 3 stems (P > .05) in multivariate analysis.ConclusionModular TFT, monoblock TFT, and FPCC femoral stem designs all perform well in revision THA with no difference in clinical outcomes or subsidence rates. Surgeons should select the stem which they feel is the most clinically appropriate.     

应用锥形沟槽式股骨组配柄假体行全髋关节翻修术的中期疗效

目的 探讨应用锥形沟槽设计的股骨组配柄假体行全髋关节股骨侧假体翻修术的中期疗效.方法 2000年5月至2005年8月采用锥形沟槽式股骨组配柄假体行全髋关节翻修术19例,男6例,女13例;年龄47～86岁,平均67岁.单髋17例,双髋2例.术前诊断均为股骨柄和臼杯假体无菌性松动合并股骨侧骨缺损,按Paprosky标准诊断为Ⅱ型缺损4髋,Ⅲa型缺损14髋,Ⅲb型缺损3髋.股骨侧翻修均采用锥形沟槽式股骨组配柄假体(Lima-Lto,意大利),髋臼侧均采用SPH臼杯假体(LimaLto,意大利)行生物学固定.关节头臼界面采用陶瓷-陶瓷组合17髋,金属-聚乙烯组合4髋.结果 全部病例随访5～10年,平均7年.Harris髋关节评分由术前平均(46.2±15.2)分改善至翻修术后半年平均(90.3±5.3)分,末次随访平均(92.2±3.5)分.X线片显示翻修柄获广泛骨长入骨性固定者20髋(95%,20/21),纤维性稳定者1髋(5%,1/21).假体下沉0～10 mm,平均2.4 mm.随访期间无一例因假体松动或其他原因需行再次翻修.结论 采用锥形沟槽式股骨组配柄假体行伴有PaproskyⅡ型、Ⅲa和Ⅲb型骨缺损的股骨侧假体翻修术,可获得理想的初始稳定和永久生物学固定,中期随访疗效满意.

Abstract：

Objective To evaluate the midterm results of the revision total hip replacement with a fluted and tapered modular stem. Methods Nineteen patients (21 hips) underwent revision total hip arthroplasty from May 2000 to August 2005 were reviewed. There were 13 females and 6 males, with an average age of 67 years. Pre-revision diagnosis included aseptic loosening of the cups and stems associated with femoral defects (Paprosky classification) type Ⅱ 4 hips (19%), type Ⅲa 14 hips (67%), and type Ⅲb 3 hips (14%). The adopted acetabular component was SPH (Lima-Lto, Italy), and femoral component was a fluted and tapered modular stem (Lima-Lto, Italy). Clinical and radiographic evaluations were performed postoperatively. Results The mean follow-up was 7 years (range, 5-10). The Harris hip score improved from 46.2±15.2 preoperatively to 90.3±5.3 postoperatively, and maintain 92.2±3.5 at the latest follow-up. The X-ray films showed bone ingrowths fixation in 20 hips (95%) and fibrous stable fixation in 1 hip (5%). The average stem subsidence was 2.4 mm (range, 0-10 mm). There were no re-revisions of the femoral stem for any reason. Conclusion The midterm results of revision total hip replacement with a fluted and tapered modular stem in Paprosky type Ⅱ, Ⅲ a, Ⅲ b femoral defect associated aseptic loosening of the femoral stem was encouraging.     

Stay Short or Go Long in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty With Paprosky Type II Femoral Defects: A Comparative Study With the Use of an Uncemented Distal Fixating Modular Stem and a Primary Monobloc Conical Stem With 5-Year Follow-Up

BackgroundIn the revisions for Paprosky type II femoral defects, diaphyseal fixating femoral stems are commonly used. To preserve bone stock, the use of a shorter primary conical stem could be an adequate alternative. The objective of this study is to compare the results of a primary conical stem to the more commonly used diaphyseal fixating modular revision stem in revision total hip arthroplasty surgery with Paprosky type II femoral defects.MethodsA total of 59 consecutive patients with Paprosky type II femoral defects from our prospective revision registry were included. Thirty patients who received a long distal fixating modular stem (Revision Stem, Lima Corporate) and 29 patients who received a primary conical short stem (Wagner Cone, Zimmer) were prospectively followed. Minimal follow-up time was 2 years for subsidence and patient-reported outcome measures and 5 years for complications, reoperation, and revision. We compared subsidence, perioperative complications, reoperations, femoral component survival, Oxford Hip Score, EuroQol 5 Dimension, visual analog scale (VAS) for pain at rest, and VAS for pain during activity between stems.ResultsBoth groups were comparable regarding demographic, clinical, and surgery-related characteristics. We found more perioperative complications and stem revisions with the modular revision stem than with the primary conical stem. There were no statistical differences in subsidence, EuroQol 5 Dimension, Oxford Hip Score, and VAS for pain at rest or during activity between both stems.ConclusionIn revision total hip arthroplasty with Paprosky type II femoral defects, uncemented primary monobloc conical femoral stems showed the same clinical result as distal fixating modular stems with fewer complications and fewer stem revisions.     

Femoral revision for periprosthetic fracture in total hip arthroplasty

Periprosthetic fracture can create significant morbidity in the arthroplasty population. Patients with periprosthetic fracture have been shown to have worse outcomes and higher mortality than patients undergoing elective revision THA. In this review, we will focus on Vancouver B2 and B3 fractures. Both of these fracture types are associated with a loose primary prosthesis and warrant revision surgery. There are many different options for fixation choice of the femoral prosthesis, and preference has been evolving over the last 30 years. Currently, we use monoblock, tapered, fluted, titanium stems for all periprosthetic fracture revision surgeries.     

Modular Fluted Tapered Stems in Aseptic Oncologic Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Game Changer?

BackgroundModular fluted tapered (MFT) stems are the most frequently used femoral component in revision total hip arthroplasties (THAs). Despite this, no data are available on how they perform in revision THA for oncologic salvage. This is a unique population, often with severe bone loss and prior radiation that extends the limits of uncemented femoral reconstruction. The aims of this study were to evaluate the implant survivorship, radiographic results, and clinical outcomes of MFT stems used for revision oncologic salvage.MethodsWe identified 17 patients treated initially with primary THA for an oncologic diagnosis (15 primary oncologic, 2 metastatic disease) who underwent subsequent femoral revision with an MFT stem. Mean age at revision was 66 years and 35% of patients were female. Mean follow-up was 4 years. Before revision, 5 of 17 had undergone local radiation.ResultsTen-year survivorship free from aseptic loosening was 100%. The survivorship free of any reoperation was 76%. There were no femoral component fractures. Three patients were revised for recurrent instability, and 1 patient underwent irrigation and debridement for an acute infection. At most recent follow-up, no patient had radiographic evidence of progressive femoral component subsidence or failure of osteointegration. The mean Harris Hip Score improved from 29 preoperatively to 76 postoperatively (P < .0001).ConclusionIn this series of patients with cancer, many of whom had severe bone loss and/or prior local radiation, being treated with revision THA, there were no revisions for femoral component loosening and no cases of implant fracture.Level of EvidenceIII.     

Cortical Strut Allograft Support of Modular Femoral Junctions During Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

Background

There is risk of junction failure when using modular femoral stems for revision total hip arthroplasty (THA), especially with loss of bone stock in the proximal femur. Using a cortical strut allograft may provide additional support of a modular femoral construct in revision THA.

The use of tapered stems for femoral revision surgery

From a biomechanical view point, cementless fixation of a tapered stem has some advantages compared with other techniques to treat severe proximal femoral bone loss in reconstructive hip surgery. We reviewed 129 consecutive revision arthroplasties of the femoral component in which the tapered Wagner self-locking revision stem was used. The mean followup of patients without rerevision of the stem was 8.1 years (range, 5.1-14.1 years). Six revision stems required rerevision (malpositioning, one stem; subsidence, one stem; periprosthetic fracture, one stem; deep infection, three stems) between 0.13 and 4.6 years postoperatively. Using removal of the stem for any cause as the end point, the cumulative survival at 14.1 years was 95.2%. The average Merle d'Aubigné score improved from 7.7 points preoperatively to 14.4 points at the latest followup. Because of new bone formation, the most recent radiographs showed clear, good, or excellent restoration of the proximal femur in 88% of patients. Considering possible late complications such as osteolysis of the femur, aseptic loosening, periprosthetic fracture, and late infection, the shortest stem that ensures sufficient mechanical stability should be used. It may be easier to achieve high primary stability in short stems with a tapered design than with other short stem designs.     

Subsidence of monoblock and modular titanium fluted tapered stems in revision hip arthroplasty: A retrospective multicentre comparison study

BackgroundTapered, fluted, titanium (TFT) stems have shown good clinical outcomes in revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA), however concerns exist regarding early subsidence. This study compares subsidence between a modern monoblock 3-degree and a modular 2-degree TFT stem in rTHA.MethodsA retrospective, international multicentre comparative study was conducted including 64 rTHA in 63 patients. A monoblock TFT stem was used in 37 cases and a modular TFT stem was used in 27 cases. Patient demographics, Paprosky femoral bone loss classification, bicortical contact and stem subsidence were recorded at minimum four week follow up.ResultsThere was no statistically significant difference in overall subsidence (p = 0.318) or the rate of subsidence >10 mm between stems. Mean subsidence was 2.13 mm in the monoblock group and 3.15 mm in the modular group. Two stems subsided >10 mm: one in each group. There was no difference in bicortical contact between groups (p = 0.98). No re-revisions were performed.ConclusionsWe found no difference in subsidence between the two stems. Surgeons may consider the use of monoblock stems in rTHA as they have comparably low rates of subsidence and eliminate the small but potentially catastrophic risk of implant fracture at modular junctions associated with modular stems.     

生物型组配式锥形柄行全髋关节翻修术的中远期疗效

目的探讨应用生物型组配式锥形柄行全髋关节翻修术的中、远期疗效。 方法收集苏州大学附属第一医院2000年5月至2011年5月因假体无菌性松动、股骨侧骨缺损而采用生物型组配式锥形柄行全髋关节翻修手术的患者,排除肿瘤、假体感染及随访时间<5年的患者,共收录37例(39髋),其中采用利马股骨翻修柄19例(21髋),林克(LINK)MP翻修柄18例(18髋)。初次置换至翻修时间为4～15年,平均(10±4)年,均为首次翻修。股骨侧骨缺损分型按Paprosky标准：Ⅲa型28髋,Ⅲb型11髋。摩擦界面均使用陶瓷－陶瓷界面。Harris评分比较采用t检验,骨缺损程度分型组间差异采用卡方检验。 结果全部病例随访6～16年,其中11例随访6～10年,26例随访超过10年,平均(11.6±2.3)年。两种假体翻修时股骨缺损程度未见明显差异(χ²＝0.434; P>0.05)。术前平均Harris髋关节评分为(43±10)分,末次随访为(90±3)分(t＝32.334,P<0.05),两种翻修假体的临床疗效差异无统计学意义(t＝0.881,P>0.05)。X线随访显示翻修柄骨性稳定者38髋(97.4%),纤维稳定者1髋(2.6%)。假体平均下沉(2.1±2.3) mm(0～10 mm)。随访期间无1例因假体松动或其他原因需行再次翻修。 结论采用生物型组配式锥形柄假体行伴有Paprosky Ⅲa和Ⅲb型骨缺损的股骨侧假体翻修,可获得理想的初始稳定和永久生物学固定,中、远期随访疗效满意。     

Nonmodular Tapered Fluted Titanium Stems Osseointegrate Reliably at Short Term in Revision THAs

Background

The ideal femoral component for revision THA is undecided. Cylindrical nonmodular stems have been associated with stress shielding, whereas junctional fractures have been reported with tapered fluted modular titanium stems. We have used a tapered fluted nonmodular titanium femoral component (Wagner Self-locking [SL] femoral stem) to mitigate this risk. This component has been used extensively in Europe by its designer surgeons, but to our knowledge, it has not been studied in North America. Added to this, the design of the component has changed since early reports.

Questions/purposes

We asked: (1) Does the Wagner SL stem have low rates of rerevision and other complications at a minimum 2 years after surgery? (2) Is the Wagner SL stem associated with high levels of patient function and pain relief at a minimum 2 years after surgery? (3) Does the Wagner SL stem have low rates of subsidence at a minimum 2 years after surgery? (4) Is the Wagner SL stem associated with proximal femoral bone remodeling at a minimum 2 years after surgery?

Method

Between May 2011 and December 2012, we performed 198 femoral revisions, of which 104 (53%) were performed using the Wagner SL femoral stem; during that period, our institution gradually shifted toward increasing use of these stems for all but the most severe revisions, in which modular fluted stems and proximal femoral replacements still are used on an occasional basis. Median followup in this retrospective study was 32 months (range, 24–46 months), and one patient was lost to followup before the 2-year minimum. The femoral deformities in this series were Paprosky Type I (10 hips), Paprosky Type II (26), Paprosky Type IIIA (52), Paprosky Type IIIB (nine), and Paprosky Type IV (two). Functional assessment was performed using the Oxford Hip Score (OHS), WOMAC, SF-12, and the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) activity score. All complications and cases of revision were documented. All patients had radiographs performed within 1 year of the latest followup. These were assessed by two surgeons for signs of proximal femoral bone remodeling and subsidence.

Results

Complete preoperative scores were available for 98 patients (98 of 104; 94%). The mean OHS preoperatively and at final followup were 39 (SD, 15) and 87 (SD, 19), respectively (p < 0.001; mean difference, 48; 95% CI, 43–53). Average WOMAC scores were 44 (SD, 15) and 87 (SD, 20), respectively (p < 0.001; mean difference, 43; 95% CI, 38–48). At final followup, signs of restoration of proximal femoral bone stock was noted in 45 of 103 hips (44%). Six (six of 104; 6%) patients had subsidence of 10 mm to 15 mm. In the remainder (98 of 104; 94%), the mean subsidence was 2 mm (range, 0–9 mm). One revision was performed for loosening associated with infection.

Conclusions

The Wagner SL stem is a viable option for patients with Paprosky Types II and III defects undergoing revision THA. This component provides high levels of patient function with low revision rates and low rates of subsidence during the early postoperative phase. They provide a viable alternative to modular components for treatment of Types II and III defects without the risk of junctional fractures. They can be used for very selected Type IV defects, however this extent of bone loss is most easily addressed with other techniques such as a proximal femoral replacement.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, therapeutic study

     

Low Revision Rates at More Than 10 Years for Dual-Mobility Cups Cemented Into Cages in Complex Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

BackgroundInstability and aseptic loosening are the two main complications after revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA). Dual-mobility (DM) cups were shown to counteract implant instability during rTHA. To our knowledge, no study evaluated the 10-year outcomes of rTHA using DM cups, cemented into a metal reinforcement ring, in cases of severe acetabular bone loss. We hypothesized that using a DM cup cemented into a metal ring is a reliable technique for rTHA at 10 years, with few revisions for acetabular loosening and/or instability.MethodsThis is a retrospective study of 77 rTHA cases with severe acetabular bone loss (Paprosky ≥ 2C) treated exclusively with a DM cup (NOVAE STICK; Serf, Décines-Charpieu, France) cemented into a cage (Kerboull cross, Burch-Schneider, or ARM rings). Clinical scores and radiological assessments were performed preoperatively and at the last follow-up. The main endpoints were revision surgery for aseptic loosening or recurring dislocation.ResultsWith a mean follow-up of 10.7 years [2.1-16.2], 3 patients were reoperated because of aseptic acetabular loosening (3.9%) at 9.6 years [7-12]. Seven patients (9.45%) dislocated their hip implant, only 1 suffered from chronic instability (1.3%). Cup survivorship was 96.1% at 10 years. No sign of progressive radiolucent lines were found and bone graft integration was satisfactory for 91% of the patients.ConclusionThe use of a DM cup cemented into a metal ring during rTHA with complex acetabular bone loss was associated with low revision rates for either acetabular loosening or chronic instability at 10 years.     

What Is the Difference Between Modular and Nonmodular Tapered Fluted Titanium Stems in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

Background

Both modular and nonmodular tapered fluted titanium stems are used in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA), with follow-up showing good results for both stems. We aimed to determine whether there were any differences in clinical outcomes, survivorship, or frequency of complications.

全髋关节置换术后股骨假体周围Vancouver B型骨折治疗的随访研究

目的 探讨全髋关节置换术后股骨假体周围Vancouver B型骨折治疗方法的选择,总结同种异体皮质骨板移植重建股骨假体周围骨折的临床效果.方法 22例全髋关节置换术后股骨假体周围骨折患者,男7例,女15例;年龄平均65岁(53～75岁).Vancouver分类B1型5例,B2型4例,B3型13例.B1型骨折采用异体皮质骨板移植加钢丝环扎治疗;B2型骨折选择加长股骨柄翻修;B3型骨折选择骨水泥柄翻修,加同种异体皮质骨板移植和钢丝环扎同定.所有患者均获得随访,随访时间平均67个月(37～95个月).采用Harris髋关节功能评分、X线片、外周血T淋巴细胞亚群、抗体免疫复合物检测 和核素骨显像对治疗结果进行评价.结果 22例患者骨折全部愈合,21例患者能自由行走,1例需要助 行器帮助.末次随访Harris评分平均89分(79～93分).患者未发生免疫排斥反应;术后3个月,骨折愈合,术后12个月,移植骨板与宿主骨骨性愈合,股骨皮质厚度增加3～5mm;核素骨显像骨板移植区放射性核素分布较对侧浓集.3例患者移植骨板出现部分吸收现象.术后2年.骨板与宿主骨融合,移植骨板吸收停止.结论 针对股骨假体周围骨折不同类型分别采取不同方法治疗能够取得较好疗效,同种异体皮质骨板移植在维持骨折稳定性、促进骨折愈合、增加局部骨量和改善骨强度方面有较好疗效.     

Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty for a Vancouver Type B3 Periprosthetic Fracture Using an Allograft-Cemented Stem Composite by the Telescoping Technique

We describe a case of successful revision total hip arthroplasty for a Vancouver type B3 periprosthetic femoral fracture with extensive bone stock deficiency and osteoporotic diaphyseal bone. The femur was reconstructed with an allograft-cemented stem composite using a telescoping technique and a drainage hole for surplus cement. This procedure facilitated stable stem fixation to the host femur without cement interference and bony fusion between the allograft and host bone, as revealed by bone scintigraphy. This technique provides a surgical option for a severe periprosthetic femoral fracture in which the femoral diaphyseal bone is too osteoporotic to support the fixation of an allograft-cementless stem composite.     

Favorable mid-to-long-term results of impaction bone grafting using a fresh frozen allograft bone with cemented stem for the treatment of Paprosky IV femoral bone defects

BackgroundFemoral revision surgery in patients with substantial bone loss is challenging. Impaction bone grafting using a cemented stem can be a good solution for reconstruction of the femur with poor bone stock and extensive bone loss. This study aimed to evaluate the mid-to-long-term clinical and radiographic results of impaction bone grafting using a cemented stem for Paprosky IV femoral bone defects.MethodsThirteen patients (13 hips) who underwent revision total hip arthroplasty with impaction bone grafting using a cemented stem and were followed up for at least 5 years were enrolled in this study. In all patients, a sufficient amount of fresh frozen bone of good quality was used. When cortical segmental defects were present, peripheral reinforcement with metal mesh and strut allograft was performed. The average follow-up duration was 11.1 (range, 5.3–15.1) years. The clinical and radiographic outcomes were reviewed at the final follow-up.ResultsThe average Harris hip score was 82.5 (range, 79–94), and the average University of California, Los Angeles activity score was 5.6 (range, 4–8) at the final follow-up. Radiographic assessment revealed an average femoral component subsidence level of 0.67 (range, 0.05–2.81) mm. There were no complications, except one case (7.6%) of periprosthetic fracture.ConclusionsImpaction bone grafting using a cemented stem yielded excellent mid-to-long-term outcomes. It is a reliable technique for Paprosky IV femoral bone defects, and even when severe femoral cortical bone defects are present, long-term stability can be obtained using a metal mesh and/or strut allograft.