Removal of well-fixed components in femoral revision arthroplasty with controlled segmentation of the proximal femur

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research

Antonis Kouzelis¹  Andreas Panagopoulos¹  Christos S Georgiou¹  Panagiotis Megas¹ 

[1] Department of Adult Reconstructive Surgery, Patras University Hospital, Patras, Greece

关键词: Surgical technique;    Hip revision arthroplasty;    Wagner revision stem;    Stem removal;    Femoral osteotomy;    Proximal femur segmentation technique;   

Others  :  1138745
DOI  :  10.1186/s13018-014-0137-9

 received in 2014-08-22, accepted in 2014-12-08,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

The transfemoral and the extended trochanteric osteotomies are the most common osteotomies used in femoral revision, both when proximal or diaphyseal fixation of the new component has been decided. We present an alternative approach to the trochanteric osteotomies, most frequently used with distally fixated stems, to overcome their shortcomings of osteotomy migration and nonunion, but, most of all, the uncontrollable fragmentation of the femur.

Methods

The procedure includes a complete circular femoral osteotomy just below the stem tip to prevent distal fracture propagation and a subsequent preplanned segmentation of the proximal femur for better exposure and fast removal of the old prosthesis. The bone fragments are reattached with cerclage wires to the revision prosthesis, which is safely anchored distally. A modified posterolateral approach is used, as the preservation of the continuity of the abductors, the greater trochanter, and the vastus lateralis is a prerequisite.

Results

Between 2006 and 2012, 47 stems (33 women, 14 men, mean age 68 years, range 39–88 years) were revised using this technique. They were 12 (26%) stable and 35 (74%) loose prostheses and were all revised to tapered, fluted, grit-blasted stems. No fracture of the trochanters or the distal femur occurred intraoperatively. Mean follow-up was 28 months (range 6–70 months). No case of trochanteric migration or nonunion of the osteotomies was recorded. Restoration of the preexisting bone defects occurred in 83% of the patients. Three patients required repeat revision due to dislocation and one due to a postoperative periprosthetic fracture. None of the failures was attributed to the procedure itself.

Conclusions

This new osteotomy technique may seem aggressive at first, but, at least in our hands, has effectively increased the speed of the femoral revision, particularly for the most difficult well-fixed components, but not at the expense of safety.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Megas et al.; licensee BioMed Central.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Figure 7.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Wagner H: Revision prosthesis for the hip joint in severe bone loss. Orthopade 1987, 16:295-300.
• [2]Younger TI, Bradford MS, Magnus RE, Paprosky WG: Extended proximal femoral osteotomy. A new technique for femoral revision arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 1995, 10(3):329-338.
• [3]Böhm P, Bischel O: Femoral revision with the Wagner SL revision stem: evaluation of one hundred and twenty-nine revisions followed for a mean of 4.8 years. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2001, 83-A(7):1023-1031.
• [4]Kuruvalli RR, Landsmeer R, Debnath UK, Suresh SP, Thomas TL: A new technique to reattach an extended trochanteric osteotomy in revision THA using suture cord. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2008, 466(6):1444-1448.
• [5]Charity J, Tsiridis E, Gusmão D, Bauze A, Timperley J, Gie G: Extended trochanteric osteotomy followed by cemented impaction allografting in revision hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2013, 28(1):154-160.
• [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(7):1074-1085.
• [7]MacDonald SJ, Cole C, Guerin J, Rorabeck CH, Bourne RB, McCalden RW: Extended trochanteric osteotomy via the direct lateral approach in revision hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2003, 417:210-216.
• [8]Mardones R, Gonzalez C, Cabanela ME, Trousdale RT, Berry DJ: Extended femoral osteotomy for revision of hip arthroplasty: results and complications. J Arthroplasty 2005, 20(1):79-83.
• [9]Valle CJ, Paprosky WG: Classification and an algorithmic approach to the reconstruction of femoral deficiency in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003, 85-A(Suppl 4):1-6.
• [10]Wieser K, Zingg P, Dora C: Trochanteric osteotomy in primary and revision total hip arthroplasty: risk factors for non-union. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2012, 132(5):711-717.
• [11]Glassman AH, Engh CA: The removal of porous-coated femoral hip stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1992, 285:164-180.
• [12]Masri BA, Mitchell PA, Duncan CP: Removal of solidly fixed implants during revision hip and knee arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2005, 13(1):18-27.
• [13]Kancherla VK, Del Gaizo DJ, Paprosky WG, Sporer SM: Utility of trephine reamers in revision hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2014, 29(1):210-213.
• [14]Austin MS, Klein GR, Pollice PF: Previously unreported complication of trephine reamers in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2006, 21(2):299-300.
• [15]Babis GC, Tsarouchas J, Boscainos PJ, Tzagarakis GP, Pantazopoulos T: Removal of the well-bonded distal part of a non-cylindrical broken femoral stem (Autophor 900S) with hollow trephine reamers–report of two cases. Acta Orthop Scand 2002, 73(4):478-480.
• [16]Mihalko WM, Balos L, Santilli M, Mindell ER: Osteonecrosis after powered core decompression. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2003, 412:77-83.
• [17]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 1):134-137.
• [18]Mahadevan D, Challand C, Keenan J: Revision total hip replacement: predictors of blood loss, transfusion requirements, and length of hospitalisation. J Orthop Traumatol 2010, 11(3):159-165.
• [19]Sharma S, Cooper H, Ivory JP: An audit on the blood transfusion requirements for revision hip arthroplasty. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2002, 84(4):269-272.