Zementfreier Femurschaftwechsel mit der Modularen Revisions Prothese MRP-TITAN-Revisionsschaft

OBJECTIVE: Restoration of a painless hip joint capable of bearing weight by uncemented implantation of a rotationally stable, modular revision stem anchored in the diaphysis. INDICATIONS: Prosthetic stem loosening with osteolytic bone defects (defect classification types I-III according to Paprosky). Material failure with broken prosthesis. Sub- and/or periprosthetic femoral fractures. Tumors. CONTRAINDICATIONS: Extensive osteolysis preventing diaphyseal anchorage of the prosthesis. SURGICAL TECHNIQUE: Transgluteal approach to the hip joint. Removal of the loose prosthetic stem and, if cemented, the bone cement as well. Excision of intramedullary granulation tissue. Reaming of the medullary cavity with flexible reaming shafts and form-fit, uncemented implantation of the star-shaped modular revision stem with diaphyseal press fit. If there is extensive loss of metaphyseal bone stock, augmentation with autogenous/allogenic bone should be performed. POSTOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT: Mobilization on two underarm crutches from the 1st postoperative day. Removal of the Redon drains after 48 h. Partial loading with 20 kg for 6 weeks postoperatively. If plain radiographs show unchanged seating of the prosthesis after 6 weeks, loading can be increased by 10 kg per week until full weight bearing is achieved; thrombosis prophylaxis is continued throughout. Radiologic checkups after 3, 6, and 12 months. After that, the patient should be checked annually. RESULTS: 45 patients (n = 48 prostheses) with an average age of 67.2 years (min.-max. 42.4-87.4 years) were investigated. The average implantation time of the Modular Revision Prosthesis MRP-TITAN revision stem was 4.7 years (min.-max. 1.0-9.0 years). The Harris Hip Score for Paprosky bone defect types I-III had increased from 25.6 preoperatively to 71.4 postoperatively at the time of the final follow-up (< or = 0.05). Extensively defective bone was diagnosed preoperatively in 32 patients (> or = Paprosky IIB). Plain radiographs showed stable anchorage without migration in 44 patients. In one case, the stem (implantation time 2.36 years) was replaced due to increasing axial subsidence (> or = 5 mm). Good integration of bone graft with subsequent defect regeneration was seen in all patients with bone transplant (n = 30). Postoperative dislocation occurred in six patients and required closed reduction in four cases. Open reduction was performed in two patients, whereby the external rotation angle of the prosthetic neck was corrected without dismantling the distally anchored prosthetic stem components. The mechanical failure rate over the follow-up period of 9 years was one out of the 48 prospectively investigated prostheses. Rate of survival according to Kaplan-Meier was 97%.     

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.     

Results of uncemented distal locked prosthesis in revision hip arthroplasty with proximal femoral bone loss: A retrospective study

Introduction:

Management of bone loss is a challenge in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). A retrospective review was performed to study the use of uncemented distal locked prosthesis in cases with proximal femoral bone loss.

Materials and Methods:

Uncemented stems with distal interlocking were used in 65 hips during revision THAs with 38 hips having Paprosky IIIB/IV defects between January 1998 and February 2004. There were 48 males and 17 females in the study with an average age of 53 years (range 30-80 years). Radiographic and clinical outcome evaluation using the Harris hip score (HHS) were performed.

Results:

An improvement in HHS (mean: 33 points) was observed at final followup (mean: 9 years). Regeneration of proximal bone stock was observed without signs of loosening or subsidence and none of the stems were revised. Three patients developed recurrent dislocation while one had a stem subsidence of 1cm following removal of interlocking bolts.

Conclusion:

Uncemented distal locked prosthesis provide adequate stability in revision THA, aiding the reconstruction of bony deficiencies while avoiding the disadvantages of fully porous or cemented implants.     

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。     

Cementless jumbo cups for revision of failed Furlong prosthesis. A case series

BackgroundRevision of failed total hip arthroplasty (THA) presents great challenge to any orthopaedic surgeon especially in the presence of acetabular defects where the main goal is to achieve durable fixation of prosthetic components to bone which is the key to successful revision surgery.MethodsSeventeen patients (17 hips) with mean age of 52 (40–61) years had revision surgery for aseptic failure of Furlong hydroxyapatite-ceramic-coated (HAC) prosthesis using cementless jumbo cups. Patients were reviewed clinically and radiographically with mean follow-up of 3.5 years (2–6). No patient was lost to follow up.ResultsAll revised acetabular components showed polyethylene wear, severe metallosis, with acetabular defects IIB (4/17), and IIIA (13/17) according to Paprosky classification. The femoral component was well fixed in all cases but one patient had stem revision for femoral fracture mal-union. There was one early post-operative infection; there was no postoperative dislocation, sciatic nerve injury, periprosthetic fracture or deep venous thrombosis. At last follow-up, no progressive radiolucencies or acetabular migration was identified. The mean Harris hip score improved from 42 (24–59) pre-operatively to 85 (72–92).ConclusionGood clinical results and radiographic stability were obtained at short term follow up after acetabular revision using cementless jumbo cups, which justify its use in revision surgery even in the face of major acetabular defects. Furlong HAC femoral component gives excellent long-term survival in young and active patients with a survival rate of 94% at 18.6 years.     

交锁翻修柄在股骨侧假体翻修术的应用

目的 报道采用交锁翻修柄(Bicontact和Kent)进行在全髋关节股骨侧假体翻修手术的疗效。方法 12例股骨侧假体翻修手术(假体松动5例，假体周围骨折7例)均采用现代无骨水泥技术，Bictintact翻修柄8例，Kent翻修假体4例，结合金属网、钢丝线缆握紧系统器械和异体骨移植进行结构重建。结果 平均随访8．40个月，功能优良10例(83．34％)，可1例(8．33％)，差1例(8．33％)，后出现Bicontact假体柄断裂和股骨干骨折。结论 在老年患股骨侧假体翻修术中，运用交锁翻修柄(Bicontact和Kent)能使手术时间和创伤减少，股骨侧固定快且牢固，并允许患早期进行功能锻炼；在股骨近端广泛骨缺失而需要大块异体骨移植进行重建的情况下，交锁翻修柄解决了既往各种假体较难固定于异体植骨块和残留的受体股骨中的问题。     

Pneumatic broaching may prevent massive stem subsidence in femoral revision hip replacement

Massive postoperative subsidence of the prosthesis is a major failure concern in revision hip replacement, as it can potentially provoke recurrent dislocation, secondary femoral fracture, and discrepancies in leg length. In this study, we aimed to evaluate whether the use of vibration-assisted broaching would offer the requisite control and reproducibility necessary to achieve axial stability for a tapered, rectangular revision stem in patients undergoing hip revision surgery. We evaluated the performance of the Zweymüller femoral revision stem implanted following pneumatic rasping in 61 patients (62 hips). There were 39 females and 22 males with a mean age of 72 years. Aseptic loosening was the indication for revision in most cases. According to the Paprosky classification, defects of the femur were grade 2 in 14 hips, grade 3 in 44 hips, and grade 4 in four hips. Ninety percent of the surgeries were first revisions. In the majority of procedures (58 procedures), we utilized anterolateral abductor splitting with the patient in the lateral position as our surgical approach. In six cases, we performed windowing of the femur diaphysis to facilitate cement removal. An extended trochanteric osteotomy was performed in two cases. In all cases, the femoral bed of the implant was modelled at the time of operation using progressively larger pneumatic broaches of 18–22 cm in length. The mean preoperative Postel Merle d’Aubigné (PMA) score was 9, which improved to 16.4 at the time of the last follow-up (mean: 4.8 years; range 3–7 years). No implant showed evidence of significant migration or loosening. During the operation, the specific use of the pneumatic hammer did not cause any complications. In conclusion, the use of the Zweymüller femoral revision stem implanted following pneumatic rasping potentially minimizes complications and maximizes benefits. An extended follow-up is required to better understand the potential long-term benefits of this approach.     

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.     

Uncemented femoral revision arthroplasty using a modular tapered,fluted titanium stem

Background and purpose — Due to the relative lack of reports on the medium- to long-term clinical and radiographic results of modular femoral cementless revision, we conducted this study to evaluate the medium- to long-term results of uncemented femoral stem revisions using the modular MRP-TITAN stem with distal diaphyseal fixation in a consecutive patient series.

Patients and methods — We retrospectively analyzed 163 femoral stem revisions performed between 1993 and 2001 with a mean follow-up of 10 (5–16) years. Clinical assessment included the Harris hip score (HHS) with reference to comorbidities and femoral defect sizes classified by Charnley and Paprosky. Intraoperative and postoperative complications were analyzed and the failure rate of the MRP stem for any reason was examined.

Results — Mean HHS improved up to the last follow-up (37 (SD 24) vs. 79 (SD 19); p < 0.001). 99 cases (61%) had extensive bone defects (Paprosky IIB–III). Radiographic evaluation showed stable stem anchorage in 151 cases (93%) at the last follow-up. 10 implants (6%) failed for various reasons. Neither a breakage of a stem nor loosening of the morse taper junction was recorded. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis revealed a 10-year survival probability of 97% (95% CI: 95–100).

Interpretation — This is one of the largest medium- to long-term analyses of cementless modular revision stems with distal diaphyseal anchorage. The modular MRP-TITAN was reliable, with a Kaplan-Meier survival probability of 97% at 10 years.     

Two-stage revision of infected hip arthroplasty using a shortened post-operative course of antibiotics

Introduction  We present a series of 30 consecutive patients with 31 infected total hip arthroplasties treated by a single surgeon over a 4-year period in whom a shortened post-operative course of antimicrobial chemotherapy was used. Methods  The treatment protocol consisted of a two-stage exchange with removal of infected components, insertion of an interim antibiotic eluting cement spacer and re-implantation of an extensively coated uncemented prosthesis on the femoral side. Systemic antibiotic treatment following each stage consisted of an abridged course of 5 days post-operative intra-venous administration followed by complete cessation of anti-microbial therapy. Results  At a mean follow-up of 35 months (minimum 24 months), there were no cases of recurrent prosthetic infection and no patient had required revision for aseptic loosening or mechanical instability on the femoral side. The combination of effective-staged surgical joint debridement, a shortened post-operative course of systemic antibiotic treatment and an adequate latent period before re-implantation has led to encourage early results in this series of revised chronic hip joint prosthetic infections.     

High revision rate after treatment of femoral neck fractures with an optionally (un)cemented stem

Background  The advantages of uncemented and cemented components in hip arthroplasty have been subject of debate. We have studied on a hemiprosthesis, which can be optionally implanted with or without cement. Since the stem geometry and surface in cemented arthroplasty differs from the uncemented one and cannot be fused into one general design, we hypothesised that this hemiprosthesis used without cement has a considerable high revision rate, based on aseptic loosening. Methods  A hemiprosthesis, which is designed for both cemented and uncemented fixation, was used (Conquest, Smith&Nephew). Preoperatively, the choice of whether to use cement or not was based on the shape and bone quality of the femoral canal. Revision rate and indication, mortality, perioperative complications and radiographic features of 151 consecutive hips in 146 patients were evaluated. Results  Twenty-three stems (15%) were implanted with cement and 128 (85%) without. After a mean follow-up of 2 years, a revision rate of 8.6% and a survival percentage of 90% (CI 85–95) were observed. Twelve uncemented stems warranted revision, compared with one cemented stem. Revision because of aseptic loosening was necessary in 7 (6%) stems, all uncemented. No differences in operation-related mortality and morbidity were observed. Conclusion  Because of the rather high revision rate, the authors advice not to use this hemiprosthesis without cement.     

Five- to 10-year results using a noncemented modular revision stem without bone grafting

The aim of the study was to evaluate the 5- to 10-year results (mean, 6.2 years) of a modular uncemented revision stem (Profemur-R). From a total series of 184 consecutive stem revisions, the first 73 were evaluated. The implant was fixed without bone grafting in all cases. The average Harris hip score increased from 40 to 75. A complete remodeling of bone defects could be documented radiographically in 70% of the cases and a partial restoration in 30%. Progressive subsidence appeared in 2 stems. Three rerevisions were required, including 1 septic case. The survival rate with aseptic loosening as the end point was 96% over an average of 10 years. The revision prosthesis examined in this study can be considered a viable and useful option to reconstruct femoral defects in revision hip arthroplasty.     

Fashioning of an anterolateral femoral bony lid for revision hip arthroplasty

Objective  Safe removal of a loosened or broken femoral stem together with cement particles and soft tissues. Preparation of the implant bed under direct vision and exact fitting of the new stem. Restoration of pain-free hip motion. Indications  Exchange of loosened or broken femoral stem, its simple extraction being impossible or fraught with complications and time-consuming. Contraindications  Exchange procedures that can be performed without resorting to an anterolateral bony lid. Surgical Technique  Anterolateral approach over the extent of the femoral stem plus cement plug. Fashioning of an anterolateral bony lid (approximately one third of the shaft circumference). The remaining part of the lateral cortex remains undisturbed. If at all possible, a proximal bony ring should be preserved. Distal part of the lid is shaped like a keel. Removal of stem, cement, granulation tissue, and necrotic bone. Reconstruction of the bed for the new femoral stem. All bony cavities are cleaned with a burr and filled with autogenous or allogenic bone. Insertion of revision stem protruding proximally by 1 cm. Closure of the lid. Stabilization with three cerclage wires. Final stable seating of the stem by gentle hammer blows. Results  This approach was used in 49 patients (average age 65 years [26–98 years]). Two patients died of unrelated causes, two could not be reached. The remaining 30 women and 15 men were followed up for 8.4 years (1–14 years). The average Harris hip score improved from 36 to 84 points. All osteotomies consolidated.     

Reconstruction of the rotation center of the hip after oblong cups in revision total hip arthroplasty

Background

The preoperative bone defect and the reconstruction of the center of rotation of the hip are critical in acetabular revision surgery. Uncemented oblong cups are employed in order to manage these issues. We analyzed the clinical results and rates of revision of two different uncemented oblong cups, the reconstruction of the center of rotation of the hip, as well as the rate of radiological loosening and possible risk factors.

Materials and methods

Forty-five patients (46 hips) underwent acetabular revision surgery using two different uncemented oblong cups. We assessed the clinical results and the survival rate for revision and aseptic loosening. Intraoperative bone loss was classified according to Paprosky, and acetabular reconstruction was assessed according to Ranawat. The mean follow-up was 7.2 years (range 4–11 years).

Results

There were four re-revisions (three due to aseptic loosening); the survival rate for re-revision due to aseptic loosening was 60.1 % at seven years. The mean distance between the center of the femoral head prosthesis and the approximate center of the femoral head improved from 21.5 to 10.2 mm. Thirteen cups showed radiological loosening; the survival rate for radiological loosening at seven years was 40.54 %. A smaller postoperative horizontal distance was correlated with cup loosening.

Conclusions

Although optimal acetabular reconstruction can be achieved by using oblong uncemented cups in revision hip surgery, the clinical and radiological results are not encouraging. Excessive medialization of the cup may increase the rate of loosening.     

Treatment outcome of two-stage revision total hip arthroplasty for infected hip arthroplasty using antibiotic-impregnated cement spacer

 Infected hip prosthesis, a serious complication of primary total hip arthroplasty (THA), can have severe consequences. We report the treatment outcome of two-stage revision THA for infected hip arthroplasty, including hemiarthroplasty, using an antibiotic-impregnated cement spacer for the interval between the first and second stages. Between 1996 and 2000 we performed this procedure on nine hips in eight patients. Cementless revision THA was performed as the second-stage procedure. Bone defects were restored with frozen allografts. The outcome was evaluated using the hip score of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA hip score). The mean duration of follow-up was 35.7 months (range 10–55 months). The mean JOA hip score at follow-up improved from 30.1 (range 10–74) to 73.2 (24–96). The mean interval between the first and second stages was 10.1 weeks (range 6–19 weeks). Eight of the nine hips achieved a successful outcome. One hip, with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection, experienced recurrence 4 months after revision THA. This patient was successfully treated 14 months after the first revision THA with a second two-stage procedure using a vancomycin- and arbekacin-impregnated cement spacer and beads. These results suggest that two-stage revision THA using an antibiotic-impregnated cement spacer is a useful technique for treating infected hip arthroplasty. Received: January 21, 2002 / Accepted: September 18, 2002 Offprint requests to: N. Takahira     

远端固定生物型假体在股骨翻修术中的应用

目的探讨远端固定生物型假体结合干燥同种异体骨植骨在近端骨缺损股骨翻修术中的应用疗效。方法自1999年7月至2004年1月,对16例（17髋）非感染性股骨假体松动患者进行翻修手术,其中2例为再次翻修,采用远端固定生物型股骨假体结合干燥同种异体骨植骨。男7例,女9例,年龄58～77岁,平均63岁,术后平均随访时间为35个月（18～56个月）。翻修前人工股骨头置换5例,全髋关节置换12例,从初次关节置换到翻修手术的间隔时间最短7年,最长16年,平均13．5年。股骨骨缺损根据Paprosky分型,Ⅰ型8髋,Ⅱ型6髋,ⅢA型3髋。翻修用假体：MP（Link）1髋,AML（DePuy）9髋,Full—coated（Zimmer）5髋,Enchelon（Smith—Nephew）股骨距替代型假体2髋。结果Harris评分从术前平均37分改善至术后平均88分,无患者发生再次松动。术后X线片显示植入骨愈合良好,假体部位骨皮质密度和厚度明显增加。结论远端固定生物型假体可以在股骨远端髓腔内获得可靠的轴向及抗旋转初始稳定性,干燥异体骨植骨能有效修复骨缺损,恢复骨量,骨愈合率高,两者结合运用于伴有近端骨缺损的股骨翻修术中,中短期疗效满意,远期疗效尚待进一步随访。     

One-stage cementless revision arthroplasty for infected hip replacements

We hypothesised that one-stage cementless revision hip arthroplasty may have advantages and a role in the treatment of selected patients with an infected hip replacement. We retrospectively reviewed all patients with an infected hip replacement treated with one-stage revision using cementless implants. Twelve patients were reviewed and followed up for at least three years (average: 7.2 years, range: 3.3–11.3 years) postoperatively. One recurrence of infection and one aseptic stem loosening were detected during follow-up. Grafted bone, which was used in eight patients, appeared to have united to host bone in all patients. The success rate of treatment was 83.3% when infection recurrence or component loosening were regarded as failure. One-stage revision hip arthroplasty using cementless implants appears to have a role in the treatment of carefully selected patients with an infected hip replacement if meticulous débridement is performed and appropriate antibiotics are properly used.     

Results of Wagner SL revision stem with impaction bone grafting in revision total hip arthroplasty

Background:

As the number of total hip arthroplasties (THAs) performed increases, so do the number of required revisions. Impaction bone grafting with Wagner SL Revision stem is a good option for managing bone deficiencies arising from aseptic osteolysis. We studied the results of cementless diaphyseal fixation in femoral revision after total hip arthroplasty and whether there was spontaneous regeneration of bone stock in the proximal femur after the use of Wagner SL Revision stem (Zimmer, Warsaw, IN, USA) with impaction bone grafting.

Materials and Methods:

We performed 53 hip revisions using impaction bone grafting and Wagner SL Revision stems in 48 patients; (5 cases were bilateral) for variety of indications ranging from aseptic osteolysis to preiprosthetic fractures. The average age was 59 years (range 44-68 years). There were 42 male and 6 female patients. Four patients died after surgery for reasons unrelated to surgery. 44 patients were available for complete analysis.

Results:

The mean Harris Hip Score was 42 before surgery and improved to 86 by the final followup evaluation at a mean point of 5.5 years. Of the 44 patients, 87% (n=39) had excellent results and 10% (n=5) had good results. The stem survival rate was 98% (n=43).

Conclusion:

Short term results for revision THA with impaction bone grafting and Wagner SL revision stems are encouraging. However, it is necessary to obtain long term results through periodic followup evaluation, as rate of complications may increase in future.     

Characterizing Femoral and Acetabular Bone Loss in Two-Stage Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty for Infection

BackgroundThe process of infection and multiple procedure-related factors in 2-stage exchange arthroplasty may lead to severe bone loss that can complicate subsequent reimplantation. The primary purpose of this study is to quantitatively characterize the extent of bone loss on the femoral and acetabular side prior to reimplantation during 2-stage revision hip arthroplasty for infection.MethodsThis retrospective case series includes 47 patients with planned 2-stage exchange arthroplasty for treatment of infected total hip replacement. Demographic, clinical, and surgical information, and complications during the 2-stage process were collected on all patients. The radiographs of all patients were reviewed prior to first-stage explantation and post-reimplantation or latest follow-up to characterize bone loss using the Paprosky classification systems.ResultsOf the 47 patients with planned 2-stage exchange, 10 patients (21%) were not reimplanted. Following explant and spacer placement, 32 patients (68%) experienced progressive femoral bone loss, and 20 (43%) experienced progressive acetabular bone loss. Patients who experienced progression of both femoral and acetabular bone (14, 30%) had a longer time between resection and reimplantation (164 ± 128 vs 88 ± 26 days, P = .03). A reimplantation time of greater than 90 days was associated with an increased risk of combined bone loss progression (15% vs 53%, P = .01). For patients who underwent reimplantation (79%), increased bone loss led to high rates of diaphyseal femoral fixation (97%) and revision acetabular components (38%).ConclusionIncreased time to reimplantation in 2-stage exchange arthroplasty for prosthetic hip infections is associated with a high rate of acetabular and femoral bone loss, and increased complexity of reimplantation.