股骨皮质骨开窗技术在髋关节翻修术中的应用

目的 探讨股骨前外侧皮质骨开窗技术在髋关节翻修术中取出股骨远端稳定固定骨水泥的价值.方法 2005年5月至2009年6月,共14例(14髋)因各种原因致髋关节置换术后失败患者接受全髋关节翻修手术.其中男性10例,女性4例,年龄54～75岁,平均66岁.翻修原因为股骨头置换术后髋臼磨损5例、全髋关节置换术后假体周围骨溶解并松动6例、骨水泥柄股骨近端骨溶解柄断裂1例、髋臼骨溶解假体松动翻修同时行股骨柄翻修1例,感染后二期翻修时远端骨水泥取出困难1例.14例(14髋)股骨柄均为骨水泥同定.术中按术前计划开窗部位、开窗范围于股骨皮质骨开一长方形骨窗.通过骨窗直视下彻底清除髓腔内稳定固定的骨水泥,修整股骨髓腔.植入翻修柄后将皮质骨开窗骨瓣原位回植,双股钢丝捆绑固定.术后定期随访拍摄x线片.观察皮质骨开窗骨瓣与周围骨愈合情况、骨瓣有无移位、股骨柄有无下沉以及有无捆绑钢丝断裂等.结果 10例患者术后获得随访,平均随访时间24.6个月.股骨皮质骨开窗长度2.5～6.0 cm,平均3.4 cm,宽度0.8～1.4 cm,平均1.2 cm.股骨开窗远端以远部分发生纵形劈裂骨折1例.无术中皮质骨穿孔及股骨干骨折.向远段扩大开窗1例,扩大长度1.5 cm.开窗部位皮质骨骨瓣原位回植选择2～3道双股钢丝固定,平均2.3道.随访期间2例发牛假体柄下沉(平均2.5 mm),无皮质骨瓣移位以及捆绑钢丝断裂,术后3～5个月皮质骨瓣已于周围骨纤维愈合.随访期间无一例因各种原因致再次翻修.结论 股骨皮质骨开窗技术在髋关节翻修术中有助于直视下彻底取出股骨髓腔远端稳定固定的骨水泥,同时不会造成股骨骨丢失、不影响翻修柄植入后的稳定固定.     

Segmental cement extraction at revision total hip arthroplasty.

Cement removal in revision total hip arthroplasty can be technically challenging. Traditional methods involve using a combination of chisels, power burrs, and drills, as well as windowing the femoral cortex to gain access to cement distally. These methods can be associated with femoral fracture or uncontrolled cortical perforation and bone loss. A new technique had been developed that permits segmental extraction of bone cement from the femoral canal. Fresh cement is introduced into the old cement mantle and a threaded rod is placed into the wet cement and held in place while the cement hardens. The thread-forming rod is then removed leaving a threaded channel in the cement. Extraction rods are then screwed 1.5 to 2.5 cm into the threaded channel. A slap hammer, which attaches to the opposite end of the extraction rod, is used to remove 1.5- to 2.5-cm segments of cement. Fifteen cases involving revision of cemented femoral components were analyzed using this system. Complete cement removal was achieved in 12 cases with much less damage to the femur when compared with conventional methods. In two cases, there was retained cement along the medial wall of the femur and, in one case, the plug could not be extracted using this system. There were no fractures or cortical perforations in this series.     

Computer-assisted fluoroscopic navigation system for removal of distal femoral bone cement in revision total hip arthroplasty

Removal of the femoral bone cement in revision total hip arthroplasty with a high-powered drill or burr potentially has a risk of damage to the bone, resulting in perforation and fracture of the femur. Recently, we have used a computer-assisted fluoroscopic navigation system for the revision of cemented total hip arthroplasty with a high-powered burr and completely removed the distal femoral bone cement with no complications in 6 cases. Thus, a computer-assisted fluoroscopic navigation system is a useful tool for the improvement of the surgical technique in revision total hip arthroplasty.     

Femoral cement removal in revision total hip arthroplasty. A biomechanical analysis

A technique of femoral cement removal in revision total hip arthroplasty is described and biomechanically evaluated. Two 9-mm holes are drilled anteriorly through the proximal femoral cortex before cement is removed. These holes permit direct visualization of the medullary canal and help to prevent eccentric reaming or inadvertent perforation with the power drill. They also provide portals for enhanced irrigation, illumination, and cement removal. For assessment of the effect of cortical perforations on bone strength, 12 cadaveric femurs containing cemented prosthetic stems were analyzed. The femurs were stressed at various loads on the Instron Materials Testing Machine (Instro Engineering Corporation, Kenton, MA) under conditions simulating single-limb stance. The stress concentrations were significantly higher about laterally drilled holes than about those located anteriorly. When loaded to failure, all fractures occurred at or below the prosthetic stem tip. No fractures occurred in the proximally placed drill holes. A finite element model showed that two holes kept at least two hole diameters apart did not cause cumulative stress concentration.     

Peri-prosthetic femoral shaft fractures treated with plate and cable fixation.

Management of post-operative peri-prosthetic femoral shaft fractures remains difficult and controversial, with no widely accepted form of treatment. Fractures at the tip of a femoral component are associated with poor union rates. We present a series of 15 fractures at the component tip extending proximally in association with a loose cement mantle. All 15 patients were treated with open reduction and internal fixation using a plate and cable system. They were followed to clinical and radiological union, at an average of 3.5 months (range 3-5 months). At final review examination, 13 patients had achieved pre-fracture mobility, with one patient requiring a single walking stick, and one requiring a Zimmer frame. Three patients under-went revision surgery after successful fracture union and rehabilitation, with long stemmed femoral components. The plate and cable procedure is not technically demanding and avoids hip exposure. This form of internal fixation provides immediate fracture stability, allowing early ambulation, hence avoiding the complications and difficulties of other methods of treatment. Such fractures should be acutely treated to achieve fracture union with a plate, cable, and screw internal fixation technique. The loose components can be revised electively, preferably by a revision hip surgeon.     

Charnley total hip arthroplasty with use of improved cementing techniques: a minimum twenty-year follow-up study.

BACKGROUND: In total hip arthroplasty, techniques for cementing the femoral component have changed over time. The purpose of the present study was to determine whether a cementing technique that includes use of a distal cement plug and retrograde filling of the femoral canal affects the fixation of the femoral component at a minimum of twenty years after the operation. METHODS: Between 1976 and 1978, the senior one of us (R.C.J.) performed 357 total hip arthroplasties with use of a Charnley flatback polished femoral stem and a contemporary cementing technique (insertion of a distal cement plug and retrograde filling of the femoral canal with cement) in 320 patients. The results after a minimum follow-up of twenty years were compared with those after 330 total hip arthroplasties performed, between 1970 and 1972, with the same femoral stem by the same surgeon with use of a hand-packing technique of cementing in 262 patients. The clinical and radiographic evaluation as well as the duration of follow-up were identical in the two groups. RESULTS: In the group managed with the contemporary cementing technique, six (1.8%) of the 336 hips that had not been lost to follow-up or revised because of infection or dislocation were revised because of aseptic loosening of the femoral component. Of the ninety-one hips in the eighty-two patients who were alive at a minimum of twenty years, five (5%) had a revision because of aseptic loosening of the femoral component. Only one hip was revised during the fifteen-to-twenty-year follow-up interval. (The revision was performed because of a fracture of the femoral component.) The rate of failure when radiographic signs of loosening were included was 4.8% (sixteen of 336 femoral components that had not been revised because of infection or dislocation) for the group managed with the contemporary cementing technique compared with 6.3% (twenty of 319 hips) in the group managed with the hand-packing technique; the difference was not significant (p = 0.40). Adequate filling of the femoral canal with cement was found to be associated with improved survival of the femoral component (p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: While no significant difference between the two cementing techniques could be identified, the ability to deliver adequate cement around the femoral component was more predictable with the contemporary cementing technique. In addition, the prevalence of loosening of the femoral component was low with use of either technique, a tribute to the Charnley flatback polished femoral component design.     

Early complications after one hundred and forty-four consecutive hip revisions with impacted morselized allograft bone and cement

BACKGROUND: The use of impacted morselized allograft bone and cement in hip revision arthroplasty has been popular, but studies that specifically address intraoperative and postoperative complications have been scarce. METHODS: All complications that occurred during, and within the first year after, 144 consecutive hip revision arthroplasties (108 stems and 130 sockets) performed with impacted morselized allograft bone and cement were recorded. Clinical and radiographic follow-up evaluation was performed at three months and at one year after surgery for all patients except eight (seven who had died of causes unrelated to the hip surgery and one who had sustained a stroke). Of these eight patients, seven had a six-week and/or three-month follow-up evaluation. RESULTS: Thirty-nine femoral fractures occurred in thirty-seven hips; twenty-nine of the fractures occurred during surgery and ten, within five months after surgery. Of the intraoperative femoral fractures, twelve were proximal, nine were diaphyseal, and eight involved the greater trochanter. Of the postoperative femoral fractures, one was proximal and nine were diaphyseal. Other intraoperative complications were the creation of a femoral cortical window in seven hips and incidental perforation of the femoral cortex in fourteen. Multivariate analysis showed the risk factors for femoral fracture during or after revision to be concomitant disease, greater deficiency of the femoral bone stock, and an intraoperative femoral window or perforation. Other complications included dislocation of the femoral head in nine hips, deep infection in one hip, persistence of preoperative deep infection in one hip, and superficial wound infection requiring wound débridement in two hips. CONCLUSIONS: We found the complication rate to be high after hip revision arthroplasty performed with impacted morselized allograft bone and cement. The most serious complication was postoperative diaphyseal femoral fracture.     

Periprosthetic femoral fracture after total hip arthroplast

Periprosthetic femoral fractures represent a significant complication in total hip arthroplasty. based on originand treatment considerations, these fractures are best considered on the basis of the proximal region, and middle region below the lesser trochanter, and distal region at the prosthetic tip and beyond. Proximal-region fractures are usually wired and treated conservatively. Middle-region fractures may require prosthetic revision in addition to fracture fixation.Distal-region fractures are most difficult and may need advanced techniques, such as distal prosthetic fixation and allograft femoral plates.     

A device for removal of femoral distal cement plug during hip revision arthroplasty: a high-powered drill equipped with a centralizer

A removal procedure of a femoral cement mantle in hip revision arthroplasty has a risk of causing perforation or fracture, especially when removing a well-fixed distal cement plug. A high-powered drill equipped with a centralizer was developed to remove the distal cement plug safely. Using the drill equipped with a centralizer, the cement plug was removed well enough to insert a new component without causing perforation during the operation.     

Zemententfernung mit Ultraschall bei Revisionen von Hüfttotalprothesen

Bone cement (polymethylmethacrylate, PMMA) removal during revision hip arthroplasty can be a tedious, time-consuming process. The usual methods of removing cement include high-speed drills, chisels, saws, and reamers, which are often associated with fracture or perforation of the femoral shaft. An alternative very promising method is cement removal with ultrasound. We present an ultrasonic device for rapid cement removal with minimum risk of trauma to the fragile femoral bone. The technique of cement removal with ultrasound is described and problems and risks are addressed.     

Modifizierter transfemoraler Zugang zum Wechsel von Hüftendoprothesen mit modularen zementlos implantierbaren Revisionsschäften

OBJECTIVE: Removal of a loose or fractured stem in total hip arthroplasty. Implantation and secure fixation of a modular uncemented revision stem to restore painless joint function. INDICATIONS: Loose and/or broken prosthetic stem. Risk of intraoperative fracture or perforation of the femur when stem revision becomes unavoidable. Periprosthetic fracture. CONTRAINDICATIONS: Loose prosthetic stems that can be revised without the risk of perforation or fracture of the femur. Interprosthetic femoral fractures between the ends of hip and knee prosthetic stems that require total replacement of the femur. SURGICAL TECHNIQUE: Exposure of the femur anterior to the lateral lip of the linea aspera in the lateral intermuscular septum. 3.2-mm drill holes are made at the anterior and posterior ends of the planned bone flap. Osteotomy of the femur anterior to the junction of the vastus lateralis and the gluteus medius muscles. Posterior osteotomy as well as distal transverse osteotomy between the drill holes and distal anterior osteotomy. The anterior osteotomy is performed using a chisel passed under the vastus lateralis from distal to proximal at the anterior aspect. The osteotomized lateral femoral bone flap with muscle attachment is folded back. Implantation of a modular uncemented revision stem and fixation of the bone flap with double cerclage. POSTOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT: Thrombosis prophylaxis, physiotherapy, gait training with partial loading of the limb at 10 kg for a period of 6 weeks with hip flexion limited to 70 degrees. Then, free range of movement and increased loading by 10 kg per week. RESULTS: 74 modular uncemented revision stems were implanted in transfemoral technique and the outcomes clinically and radiologically analyzed over an average follow-up period of 20.2 +/- 12.1 months (10-43 months). The Harris Hip Score increased from a preoperative value of 42.21 to 85.97 points after 2 years. Subsidence was observed for four stems and early loosening for two stems. The press-fit anchorage of these latter two stems was < 3 cm.     

髋关节置换术中股骨假体周围骨折危险因素的分析

目的分析髋关节置换术中股骨假体周围骨折的发生情况和危险因素。方法选择本组自2002年1月至2008年12月所有行初次和翻修髋关节置换术患者共3021髋(初次置换术2718髋,翻修术294髋),分析术中股骨假体周围骨折的发生情况,并用Logistic回归分析骨折发生的相关因素,包括性别、年龄、术前诊断、假体类型、固定方式。用2检验进行初次置换和翻修术中发生骨折的差异性检验。结果总的术中股骨假体周围骨折发生率为5.7%(173/3021),其中初次置换发生率为4.0%(110/2718),翻修术发生率为21.4%(63/294)。初次置换应用骨水泥股骨假体术中骨折发生率为1.9%(8/429),非骨水泥股骨假体术中骨折发生率为4.5%(102/2289),初次置换术中骨折82.7%(91/110)发生于干骺端;翻修术应用骨水泥股骨假体术中骨折发生率为18.8%(21/112),非骨水泥股骨假体术中骨折发生率为23.1%(42/182),翻修术术中骨折62%(39/63)发生于骨干部。Logistic回归分析显示:初次髋关节置换术中骨折的危险因素包括性别、术前诊断、固定方式、假体类型;翻修术性别、年龄、假体固定方式不是引起术中骨折的危险因素。应用2检验,翻修术中股骨假体骨折的风险与初次置换相比差异有统计学意义(P0.000),OR值为6.5,95%CI(4.6,9.1)。结论初次髋关节置换术中股骨假体周围骨折的发生率为4.0%,主要发生于干骺端(83.6%),女性、髋关节发育不良、髋部骨折、高位脱位、非骨水泥固定是术中骨折的危险因素;髋关节翻修术中股骨假体周围骨折的发生率(21.4%),远高于初次髋关节置换术,主要发生于骨干部(61.9%),骨折的发生与否可能主要取决于翻修时的骨质情况,性别、年龄、假体固定方式并不是主要的影响因素。     

人工髋关节置换术并发股骨骨折临床分析

目的探讨人工髋关节置换术并发股骨骨折的病因、治疗及预防。方法总结本院１９７２年４月～１９９６年６月行人工髋关节置换术９４５例，其中人工髋关节翻修术１４２例，初次人工髋关节置换术４９３例，人工股骨头置换３１０例。结果术中共发生股骨骨折２５例，总发生率为２．６％，其中人工髋关节翻修术８例，初次人工髋关节置换术１２例，人工股骨头置换５例。结论骨质疏松、医源性、先天性的股骨解剖结构改变以及软组织松解不彻底是发生术中骨折的主要原因。以下措施可有效地预防术中骨折的发生：（１）术前测量髓腔的大小，选择合适的假体；（２）彻底松解髋周软组织，脱位或复位时避免暴力；（３）用长假体应充分扩大髓腔；（４）假体置入时如遇有阻力，应避免强力打入，如突然有突破感，应考虑可能有骨折，应术中透视或照像。     

Fractures at the tip of long-stem prostheses used for revision hip arthroplasty

We report a retrospective analysis of the incidence of intraoperative femur fractures at the tip of the prosthesis in 45 consecutive, uncemented, long (205-mm), straight hydroxyapatite, fully coated stems used for revision arthroplasty of the hip. Five patients were lost to follow-up. Intraoperative fractures of the distal femur occurred in 7 cases (17.5%). In the remaining 33 cases in which no fracture occurred, the tip of the implanted stem was found to be potentially at risk for causing a fracture in 18 (55%) cases. We concluded that uncemented, 205-mm, straight femoral stems should be used with caution in the setting of revision hip surgery. A bowed stem of that length may be a safer alternative. Otherwise, a shorter, straight stem may reduce the risk of complications at the stem tip.     

Femoral component revision using extensively porous-coated cementless stem

The number of revision hip arthroplasty increasesannually. Because of the loss of proximal femoralbone stock, femoral component revision is still achallenging problem for orthopedic surgeons. In mostcases, the femoral stem should be supported byremaining host bone for avoiding the need for structuralallografts. Previous results of cemented or proximalcoated implant for arthroplasty revision are notencouraging because the remaining bone is frequentlysclerotic and smooth.1-6The extensively porou…     

Late fracture of the femur following perforation during hip arthroplasty. A report of 2 cases

Two women in their seventies sustained a perforation of the femoral shaft during a total hip replacement without trochanteric osteotomy. They both had late fractures from minor trauma 7 and 12 months postoperatively. Immediate revision followed by 3-6 months of external support should be considered in patients with peroperative femoral perforation with cement leakage.     

Revision total hip replacement without trochanteric osteotomy

Revision total hip replacement has traditionally required a trochanteric osteotomy for successful cement removal and component reinsertion. In this study the authors have concluded that in most instances the revision total hip replacement procedure can be successfully performed without trochanteric osteotomy. The advantages are underscored by the high percentage of trochanteric complications with trochanteric osteotomy for revision total hip replacement and the ease of rehabilitation without trochanteric osteotomy. Also, improved functional results without trochanteric osteotomy were noted. The specific indications for the procedure included revision total hip replacement with ununited prior trochanteric osteotomy, revision total hip replacement with femoral shaft fractures, and revision total hip replacement with stem fractures requiring only acetabular revision. The contraindications to the procedure are fibrous union or ununited trochanteric osteotomy from prior total hip replacement, severe acetabular protrusion of the acetabular component, advanced myositis ossificans, ankylosis of the hip, and advanced proximal femoral osteoporosis. The operating room records, x-rays, and outpatient records of 63 total hip revisions in 52 patients were reviewed. There was a minimum 2-year follow up with a range from two years to seven years. The patients were divided into two groups, comparing 21 trochanteric osteotomized revisions to 44 with trochanteric sparing techniques. Both groups were analyzed for age, type of implant, intraoperative perforation of femur, intraoperative femoral shaft fractures, intraoperative cortical window, component malpositioning extraneous cement, intraoperative blood loss, operating time, postoperative leg length inequality, persistent abductor weakness, average first day of ambulation, wound infection, dislocation, nonunion of the trochanter, and postoperative pain. In the nonosteotomized group, there was a 21% decreased blood loss, a 14% decrease in persistent abductor weakness, a 14% decrease in subluxation and dislocation, a 30% decrease operating time and a 50% reduction in intraoperative femoral perforation. In the osteotomized group there were six cases of fibrous union of the greater trochanter, two cases requiring removal of broken wires for trochanteric bursitis. A detailed surgical technique and representative cases are presented. In carefully selected cases, revision total hip replacement is optimally performed without trochanteric osteotomy. Postoperative trochanteric problems of nonunion, broken wires, bursitis, and abductor weakness can effectively be eliminated by avoiding trochanteric osteotomy.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)     

Total Hip Arthroplasty in Patients With Osteopetrosis

BackgroundOsteopetrosis is an inherited bone disease associated with high risk of osteoarthritis and fracture non-union, which can lead to total hip arthroplasty (THA). Bone quality and morphology are altered in these patients, and there are limited data on results of THA in these patients. The goals of this study were to describe implant survivorship, clinical outcomes, radiographic results, and complications in patients with osteopetrosis undergoing primary THA.MethodsWe identified 7 patients (9 hips) with osteopetrosis who underwent primary THA between 1970 and 2017 utilizing our total joint registry. The mean age at index THA was 48 years and included two males and five females. The mean follow-up was 8 years.ResultsThe 10-year survivorship free from any revision or implant removal was 89%, with 1 revision and 1 resection arthroplasty secondary to periprosthetic femoral fractures. The 10-year survivorship free from any reoperation was 42%, with 4 additional reoperations (2 ORIFs for periprosthetic femoral fractures, 1 sciatic nerve palsy lysis of adhesions, 1 hematoma evacuation). Harris hip scores significantly increased at 5 years (P = .04). Five hips had an intraoperative acetabular fracture, and 1 had an intraoperative femur fracture. All postoperative femoral fractures occurred in patients with intramedullary diameter less than 5 mm at a level 10 cm distal to the lesser trochanter.ConclusionPrimary THA in patients with osteopetrosis is associated with good 10-year implant survivorship (89%), but a very high reoperation (58%) and periprosthetic femoral fracture rate (44%). Femoral fractures appear associated with smaller intramedullary diameters.