Revision total hip arthroplasty in patients younger than 55 years old. Clinical and radiologic results after 4 years |
| |
| Authors: | C N Str?mberg P Herberts L Ahnfelt |
| |
| Affiliation: | 2. Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology HUG, Genève, Switzerland;3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Tohoku University School of Medicine, Sendai, Japan;1. Division of Orthopedics, Sendai City Hospital, Sendai, Japan;2. North Sendai Orthopaedic Clinic, Sendai, Japan;3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Tohoku Medical and Pharmaceutical University, Japan;4. Laboratory of Strength of Material and Science, Strategic Innovation and Research Center, Teikyo University, Tokyo, Japan;1. Bone and Joint Center, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI, USA;2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI, USA;1. Beijing Advanced Innovation Centre for Biomedical Engineering and School of Biological Science and Medical Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing, China;2. Mechanical Engineering Department, Imperial College London, London, UK;3. Engineering and Applied Sciences, Aston University, Birmingham, UK;4. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Avicenne Teaching Hospital, APHP, University Paris XIII, Bobigny, France |
| |
| Abstract: | Since 1979, all revision total hip arthroplasties performed in Sweden have been entered into a prospective multicenter study. Between 1979 and 1982, 65 patients (67 hips) younger than 55 years old required revision arthroplasty because of aseptic loosening. These patients were followed clinically and radiographically for 2-6 years (mean, 4 years). Thirteen patients requiring a second revision because of a recurrent aseptic loosening and one because of subluxations were classified as failures and were not included in the final follow-up study. In the remaining 52 hips (50 patients), the results, rated by the Harris hip score, were good or excellent in 15 hips (29%), fair in 9 hips (17%), and poor in 28 hips (54%). Early complications were rare. Ten hips in 10 patients had radiographic signs of gross loosening of the acetabular or femoral component. mechanical failure, defined as gross loosening or a second revision, was identified in 36% of hips included in the study (n = 67). Revision hip arthroplasty using cement in young and middle-aged patients with cemented primary arthroplasty gave a high rate of failure, because of aseptic loosening. The use of alternative methods and techniques must be explored for revision surgery in younger patients. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
