Midterm Outcomes of Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Using a Modular Revision Hip System

被引:21
作者
Smith, Marie Anne [1 ]
Deakin, Angela H. [1 ]
Allen, David [1 ]
Baines, Joe [1 ]
机构
[1] Golden Jubilee Natl Hosp, Dept Orthopaed, Agamemnon St, Clydebank G81 4DY, West Dunbartons, Scotland
关键词
revision lop arthroplasty: modular; femoral stem; failure; survival; BONE LOSS; FEMORAL COMPONENT; FOLLOW-UP; FIXATION; STEM; ALLOGRAFT;
D O I
10.1016/j.arth.2015.08.029
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: The growth in hip arthroplasty surgery has meant a corresponding escalating revision burden with increasing challenges for the orthopaedic surgeon. The purpose of this study was to review clinical outcomes of a modular revision hip system within a single institution. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed a cohort of modular revision hip system stems performed in our institution between January 2005 and October 2012 giving a potential minimum follow-up of 2 years. Clinical outcomes data on complications, Oxford Hip Score (OHS, 0-48) and patient satisfaction were collected. Radiographic outcomes including subsidence were assessed. Implant survival was estimated using Kaplan Meier analysis. Results: 115 stems in 106 patients were identified. All cause survival was 82% (95%CIs: 73%-89%) at 6.1 years; survival excluding infection being 99% (95%Cls: 93%-100%). There was a low incidence of subsidence (seven stems) and no peri-prostheticfractures. Primary cause of re-revision in this series was re-infection with only one re-revision for mechanical failure. Median Oxford Hip Score at mean follow up 4.1 years (2-9) was 40 (14-48) and 93% of patients reported being satisfied with their revision surgery. Conclusion: This study showed good clinical outcomes and survival using a modular revision stem with low mechanical failure and subsidence. Recurrence of infection remains a challenge in revision surgery.
引用
收藏
页码:446 / 450
页数:5
相关论文
共 25 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2014, 10 NATL JOINT REGIST
[2]  
Azzam Khalid A, 2010, J Arthroplasty, V25, DOI 10.1016/j.arth.2008.11.104
[3]   LOSS TO FOLLOW-UP - DOES IT MATTER [J].
BRITTON, A ;
MURRAY, D ;
BULSTRODE, C ;
MCPHERSON, K ;
DENHAM, R .
LANCET, 1995, 345 (8963) :1511-1512
[4]   Economics of revision total hip arthroplasty [J].
Burns, Alexander W. R. ;
Bourne, Robert B. .
CURRENT ORTHOPAEDICS, 2006, 20 (03) :203-207
[5]   Clinical experience with a modular noncemented femoral component in revision total hip arthroplasty - 4-to 7-year results [J].
Christie, MJ ;
DeBoer, DK ;
Tingstad, EM ;
Capps, M ;
Brinson, MF ;
Trick, LW .
JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY, 2000, 15 (07) :840-848
[6]   Managing femoral bone loss in revision total hip replacement FLUTED TAPERED MODULAR STEMS [J].
Cross, M. B. ;
Paprosky, W. G. .
BONE & JOINT JOURNAL, 2013, 95B (11) :95-97
[7]  
Della Valle CJ, 2003, J BONE JOINT SURG AM, V85A, P1
[8]   Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Using a Modular Femoral Implant in Paprosky Type III and IV Femoral Bone Loss [J].
Desai, Rasesh R. ;
Malkani, Arthur L. ;
Hitt, Kirby D. ;
Jaffe, Fredrick F. ;
Schurman, John R., II ;
Shen, Jianhua .
JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY, 2012, 27 (08) :1492-1498
[9]  
Goldstein JM, WHY REVISION ARTHROP
[10]   Use of a Modular Tapered Fluted Femoral Component in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Following Resection of a Previously Infected Total Hip: Minimum 5-year Follow-Up [J].
Houdek, Matthew T. ;
Perry, Kevin I. ;
Wyles, Cody C. ;
Berry, Daniel J. ;
Sierra, Rafael J. ;
Trousdale, Robert T. .
JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY, 2015, 30 (03) :435-438