Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.5371/jkhs.2010.22.3.189

Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Using a Fully Porous-Coated Long Stem - a Minimum 5 Years Follow up -  

Cho, Yoon-Je (Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, College of Medicine, Kyung Hee University)
Kwak, Sang-Joon (Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, College of Medicine, Kyung Hee University)
Chun, Young-Soo (Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, College of Medicine, Kyung Hee University)
Rhyu, Kee-Hyung (Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, College of Medicine, Kyung Hee University)
Ko, Taeg-Su (Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, College of Medicine, Kyung Hee University)
Yoo, Myung-Chul (Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, College of Medicine, Kyung Hee University)
Publication Information
Hip & pelvis / v.22, no.3, 2010 , pp. 189-196 More about this Journal
Abstract
Purpose: We wanted to evaluate the mid-term results of revision total hip arthroplasty using a fully porous-coated long stem. Materials and Methods: A retrospective series of 20 hips in 19 patients who underwent stem revision with a fully porous-coated long stem were evaluated at a mean follow-up of 64.6 months. The causes of revision were aseptic loosening, periprosthetic fracture and infected arthroplasty. Four kinds of implants had previously been used and an additional bone graft procedure had been done in 17 cases. The Harris hip scores, thigh pain, limping and ROM were reported. Radiological changes of the radiolucent signs, subsidence, loosening and the stress shielding signs were evaluated. Results: The Harris hip score improved from an average of 56.5 to 91.9 and the ROMs were satisfactory. The only case with persistent thigh pain showed stable bony ingrowth. No signs of subsidence or loosening of the stem was found in all the cases. There were 2 cases of periprosthetic fracture. None of the patients experienced re-revision surgery. Conclusion: The mid-term results of revision hip arthroplasty using a fully porous coated long stem have demonstrated that it provides a reliable initial fixation with a propensity for stable longevity. It is relatively easy for the techniques, and there is the opportunity to restore the bone stock by bone-grafting procedures with diaphyseal fixation and bypassing a bone defect. Yet alternative techniques may be required for the femur with extensive diaphyseal bone loss. There are some concerns about the technique and the possibility of making a crack in the femur during the operation, which will cause thigh pain at the follow-up. So, only by employing great caution when performing this technique can successful results be guaranteed.
Keywords
Femur; Osteolysis; Revision total hip arthroplasty; Fully porous coated long stem;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Della Valle CJ, Paprosky WG. The femur in revision total hip arthroplasty evaluation and classification. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;420:55-62.   DOI
2 Mulroy WF, Harris WH. Revision total hip arthroplasty with use of so-called second-generation cementing techniques for aseptic loosening of the femoral component. A fifteen-year-average follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1996;78:325-30.   DOI
3 Pellicci PM, Wilson PD Jr, Sledge CB, et al. Long-term results of revision total hip replacement. A follow-up report. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1985;67:513-6.   DOI
4 Paprosky WG, Greidanus NV, Antoniou J. Minimum 10-year results of extensively porous-coated stems in revision hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999;369:230-42.   DOI
5 Weeden SH, Paprosky WG. Minimal 11-year follow-up of extensively porous-coated stems in femoral revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2002;17 Suppl:134-7.   DOI
6 Callaghan JJ, Salvati EA, Pellicci PM, Wilson PD Jr, Ranawat CS. Results of revision for mechanical failure after cemented total hip replacement, 1979 to 1982. A two to five-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1985;67:1074-85.   DOI
7 Gie GA, Linder L, Ling RS, Simon JP, Slooff TJ, Timperley AJ. Contained morselized allograft in revision total hip arthroplasty. Surgical technique. Orthop Clin North Am. 1993;24:717-25.
8 Sporer SM, Paprosky WG. Revision total hip arthroplasty: the limits of fully coated stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;417:203-9.
9 Buttaro MA, Mayor MB, Van Citters D, Piccaluga F. Fatigue fracture of a proximally modular, distally tapered fluted implant with diaphyseal fixation. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22:780-3.   DOI   ScienceOn
10 Kim YH. Cemented revision hip arthroplasty using strut and impacted cancellous allografts. J Arthroplasty. 2004;19:726-32.   DOI   ScienceOn
11 Oakes DA, Cabanela ME. Impaction bone grafting for revision hip arthroplasty: biology and clinical applications. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2006;14:620-8.   DOI
12 Schreurs BW, Arts JJ, Verdonschot N, Buma P, Slooff TJ, Gardeniers JW. Femoral component revision with use of impaction bone-grafting and a cemented polished stem. Surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg. 2006;88-A Suppl:259-74.
13 Sierra RJ, Charity J, Tsiridis E, Timperley JA, Gie GA. The use of long cemented stems for femoral impaction grafting in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90:1330-6.   DOI   ScienceOn
14 Blackley HR, Davis AM, Hutchison CR, Gross AE. Proximal femoral allografts for reconstruction of bone stock in revision arthroplasty of the hip. A nine to fifteenyear follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83:346-54.   DOI
15 Gross AE, Hutchison CR. Proximal femoral allografts for reconstruction of bone stock in revision arthroplasty of the hip. Orthop Clin North Am. 1998;29:313-7.   DOI   ScienceOn
16 Haentjens P, De Boeck H, Opdecam P. Proximal femoral replacement prosthesis for salvage of failed hip arthroplasty: complications in a 2-11 year follow-up study in 19 elderly patients. Acta Orthop Scand. 1996;67:37-42.   DOI
17 Parvizi J, Sim FH. Proximal femoral replacements with megaprostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;420:169-75.   DOI
18 Moreland JR, Bernstein ML. Femoral revision hip arthroplasty with uncemented, porous-coated stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1995;319:141-50.
19 Ornstein E, Atroshi I, Franzen H, Johnsson R, Sandquist P, Sundberg M. Results of hip revision using the Exeter stem, impacted allograft bone, and cement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;389:126-33.   DOI   ScienceOn
20 Gustilo RB, Bechtold JE, Giacchetto J, Kyle RF. Rationale, experience and results of long-stem femoral prosthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989;249:159-68.
21 Hellman EJ, Capello WN, Feinberg JR. Nonunion of extended trochanteric osteotomies in impaction grafting femoral revisions. J Arthroplasty. 1998;13:945-9.   DOI   ScienceOn
22 Hostner J, Hultmark P, Karrholm J, Malchau H, Tveit M. Impaction technique and graft treatment in revisions of the femoral component: laboratory studies and clinical validation. J Arthroplasty. 2001;16:76-82.
23 Engh CA, Massin P, Suthers KE. Roentgenographic assessment of the biologic fixation of porous-surfaced femoral components. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990;259:107-28.
24 Krishnamurthy AB, MacDonald SJ, Paprosky WG. 5- to 13-year follow-up study on cementless femoral components in revision surgery. J Arthroplasty. 1997;12:839-47.   DOI   ScienceOn