Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare results of patients with Paprosky type I
and II femoral defects vs type IIIA, IIIB, and IV defects in patients undergoing revision
hip arthroplasty. There were 64 patients in the group with type I and II defects with
an average age of 68 years. There were 52 patients with Paprosky type IIIA, IIIB,
and IV defects with an average age of 67 years. There were 8 intraoperative fractures
in the type III and IV group, whereas there were 9 in the type I and II group. There
were no differences between the 2 groups with respect to subsidence, loosening, dislocation,
infection, and medical complications. Survivorship for the whole group was 96.9% at
5 years. Modular femoral implants provide several intraoperative options to restore
leg length, offset, and stability despite femoral defects. We did not realize a higher
failure rate in patients with type III or IV defects.
Keywords
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to The Journal of ArthroplastyAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Prevalence of primary and revision total hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 1990 through 2002.J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005; 87: 1487
- Classification and an algorithmic approach to the reconstruction of femoral deficiency in revision total hip arthroplasty.J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003; 85-A: 1
- Long-term results after cemented revision of the femoral component in total hip arthroplasty.J Arthroplasty. 2001; 16: 777
- Extensively porous-coated femoral revision for severe femoral bone loss: minimum 10-year follow-up.J Arthroplasty. 2002; 17: 955
- Femoral fixation in the face of considerable bone loss: the use of modular stems.Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004; 429: 227
- Impaction technique and graft treatment in revisions of the femoral component: laboratory studies and clinical validation.J Arthroplasty. 2001; 16: 76
- Proximal femoral allograft for reconstruction of bone stock in revision arthroplasty of the hip. A nine to fifteen-year follow-up.J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001; 83-A: 346
- Long-term results of proximal femoral replacement for non-neoplastic disorders.J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1995; 77: 351
- Early outcome of a modular femoral component in revision total hip arthroplasty.J Arthroplasty. 2008; 23: 220
- Clinical experience with a modular non- cemented femoral component in revision total hip arthroplasty: 4- to 7-year results.J Arthroplasty. 2000; 15: 840
- Complex revision total hip arthroplasty with modular stems at a mean of 14 years.Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007; 465: 166
- Results of revision for mechanical failure after cemented total hip replacement, 1979 to 1982. A two to five years follow up.JBJS Am. 1985; 67: 1074
- Revision total hip arthroplasty: the limits of fully coated stems.Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003; 417: 203
- The effect of modular tapered fluted stems on proximal stress shielding in the human femur.J Arthroplasty. 2009; 24: 957
- Fatigue fracture of a modular revision femoral component: a report of forty cases..in: Annual Meeting, February; Am Acad Orthop Surg, Washington, DC2005
- Hozack W.J. Parvisi J. Bendon B. Surgical options for femoral reconstruction: the use of modular stems in surgical treatment of hip arthritis: reconstruction, replacement and revision. Saunders Elsevier, Philadelphia (Pa)2010: 318
- Uncemented revision total hip arthroplasty: a 4-to-6-year review.Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996; 325: 156
- Femoral component revision using an uncemented, proximally coated, long-stem prosthesis.J Arthroplasty. 1996; 11: 411
- Failure of a proximally porous-coated femoral prosthesis in revision total hip arthroplasty.J Arthroplasty. 1995; 10: S22
- A modular distal fixation option for proximal bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty: a 2- to 6-year follow-up study.J Arthroplasty. 2003; 18: 94
- Two-year to five-year follow up of femoral defects in femoral revision treated with the Link MP modular stem.J Arthroplasty. 2009; 24: 751
- A modular femoral implant for uncemented stem revision in THR.Int Orthop. 2000; 24: 134
- 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
- Five- to 10-year results using a noncemented modular revision stem without bone grafting.J Arthroplasty. 2008; 23: 964
- Improved outcome in femoral revision arthroplasty with tapered fluted modular titanium stems.Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006; 453: 199
- The long-term success of modular proximal fixation stems in revision total hip arthroplasty.J Arthroplasty. 2002; 17: 138
- Decreased dislocations following revision THA using larger femoral head size and posterior capsular repair.J Arthroplasty. 2009; 24: 73
Article info
Publication history
Published online: June 28, 2012
Accepted:
March 19,
2012
Received:
May 4,
2011
Footnotes
Supplementary material available at www.arthroplastyjournal.org.
The Conflict of Interest statement associated with this article can be found at doi:10.1016/j.arth.2012.03.039.
Identification
Copyright
© 2012 Elsevier Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
