The Journal of Arthroplasty
Volume 25, Issue 3 , Pages 348-354 , April 2010

Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Using a Modular Tapered Stem With Distal Fixation: Good Short-Term Results in 125 Revisions

  • Ole Ovesen, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Odense University Hospital, University of Southern Denmark, Odense C, Denmark
    • Clinical Institute, University of Southern Denmark, Odense C, Denmark
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests: Ole Ovesen, MD, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Odense University Hospital, Sdr Boulevard 29, 5000 Odense C, Denmark.
    • ,
  • Claus Emmeluth, MD, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Odense University Hospital, University of Southern Denmark, Odense C, Denmark
    • ,
  • Christian Hofbauer, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Odense University Hospital, University of Southern Denmark, Odense C, Denmark
    • ,
  • Søren Overgaard, MD, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Odense University Hospital, University of Southern Denmark, Odense C, Denmark
    • Clinical Institute, University of Southern Denmark, Odense C, Denmark

Received 12 May 2008 ,Accepted 26 November 2008.

References 

  1. Paprosky WG, Greidanus NV, Antoniou JA. Minimum 10-year results of extensively porous-coated stems in revision hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop. 1999;369:230
  2. Weeden SH, Paprosky WG. Minimal 11 year follow-up of extensively porous-coated stems in femoral revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2002;17(4 Suppl 1):134
  3. Wagner H. Revisionsprothese für das hüftgelenk. Orthopäde. 1989;18:438
  4. Grunig R, Morscher E, Ochsner PE. Three to 7-year results with the uncemented SL femoral revision prosthesis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1997;116:187
  5. Isacson J, Stark A, Wallensten R. The Wagner revision prosthesis consistently restores bone structure. Int Orthop. 2000;24:139
  6. Böhm P, Bischel O. The use of tapered stems for femoral revision surgery. Clin Orthop. 2004;420:148
  7. Sporer SM, Paprosky WG. Cementless femoral revision: the role of monoblock versus modular stems. Curr Orthop. 2006;20:171
  8. Femoral stem fractures in Zimmer modular revision (ZMR) hip systems. TGA News. 2003;40:20
  9. Saleh KJ, Holtzman J, Gafni A, et al. Reliability and intraoperative validity of preoperative assessment of standardized plain radiographs in predicting bone loss at revision hip surgery. J Bone Joint Surg (Am). 2001;83:1040
  10. Engh CA, Massin P, Suthers KE. Roentgenographic assessment of the biologic fixation of porous-surfaced femoral components. Clin Orthop. 1990;257:107
  11. Callaghan JJ, Salvati EA, Pellici PM, et al. Results of revision for mechanical failure after cemented total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg. 1985;67A:1074
  12. Harris WH. Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg (Am). 1969;4:737
  13. Schenk RK, Wehrli U. Reaction of bone to a cement-free SL femur revision prosthesis. Histologic findings in an autopsy specimen 5 1/2 months after surgery. Orthopäde. 1989;18:454
  14. Bircher HP, Riede U, Luem M, et al. The value of the Wagner SL revision prosthesis for bridging large femoral defects. Orthopäde. 2001;30:294
  15. Kolstad K, Adalberth G, Mallmin H, et al. The Wagner revision stem for severe osteolysis. 31 hips followed for 1.5-5 years. Acta Orthop Scand. 1996;67:541
  16. Berry DJ. Femoral revision: distal fixation with fluted, tapered grit-blasted stems. J Arthroplasty. 2002;17:142
  17. Wirtz DC, Heller KD, Holzwarth U, et al. A modular femoral implant for uncemented stem revision in THR. Int Orthopaedics. 2000;24:134
  18. Kwong LM, Miller AJ, Lubinus P. A modular distal fixation option for proximal bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2003;18:94
  19. Schuh A, Werber S, Holzwarth U, et al. Cementless modular hip revision arthroplasty using the MRP Titan Revision Stem: outcome of 79 hips after an average of 4 years follow-up. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2004;124:306
  20. Murphy SB, Rodriguez J. Revision total hip arthroplasty with proximal bone loss. J Arthroplasty. 2004;19:115
  21. Mumme T, Müller-Rath R, Weisskopf M, et al. Die zementfreie modulare MRP-Hüftrevisionsschaftendoprothese im “klinischen follow-up”. Z Orthop. 2004;142:314
  22. McInnis DP, Horne G, Devane PA. Femoral revision with a fluted, tapered, modular stem. J Arthroplasty. 2006;21:372
  23. Park YS, Moon YW, Lim SJ. Revision total hip arthroplasty using a fluted and tapered modular distal fixation stem with and without extended trochanteric osteotomy. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22:993
  24. Hinrichs F, Boudriot U, Hünerkopf M, et al. Design und erste klinische ergebnisse mit dem ZMR-taper-revisionsschaft. Z Orthop. 2005;143:355
  25. Procenca A, Cabral R. Revision of the femoral side in total hip replacement. Eur Instr Course Lect. 2005;7:143

 No benefits or funds were received in support of the study.

PII: S0883-5403(09)00034-5

doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2008.11.106

The Journal of Arthroplasty
Volume 25, Issue 3 , Pages 348-354 , April 2010

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution