Early Outcome of a Modular Femoral Component in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

Journal of Arthroplasty

Volumn 23, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 220-225

  Kang, Michael N ^a   Huddleston, James I ^a,b   Hwang, Kathy ^a,b   Imrie, Susana ^a,b   Goodman, Stuart B ^a,b  

^a Insall Scott Kelly Institute   (United States)

^b STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

modular femoral component; revision; total hip arthroplasty

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD; SCORING SYSTEM; TOTAL HIP PROSTHESIS;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ARTHROPLASTY, REPLACEMENT, HIP; FEMALE; FEMUR; HIP JOINT; HIP PROSTHESIS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROSTHESIS DESIGN; REOPERATION; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 38949119759     PISSN: 08835403     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2007.03.006     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Kurtz S., Mowat F., Ong K., et al. Prevalence of primary total hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 1990 through 2002. J Bone Joint Surg 87A (2005) 1487
2. Sculco TP, Sporer SM. Primary total hip and knee arthroplasty projections for the US population to the year 2030. AAOS Report 2002.
3. Mulroy W.F., and Harris W.H. Revision total hip arthroplasty with use of so-called 2nd generation cementing techniques for aseptic loosening of the femoral component. A 15 year average follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg 78A (1996) 325
4. Kavanaugh B.F., Ilstrup D.M., and Fitzgerald Jr. R.H. Revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg 67A (1985) 517
5. Katz R.P., Callaghan J.J., Sullivan P.M., et al. Long-term results of revision total hip arthroplasty with improved cementing techniques. J Bone Joint Surg 79B (1997) 322
6. Haydon C.M., Mehin R., Burnett S., et al. Revision total hip arthroplasty with use of a cemented femoral component. J Bone Joint Surg 86A (2004) 1179
7. Dohmae Y., Bechtold J.E., Sherman R.E., et al. Reduction in cement-bone interface shear strength between primary and revision arthroplasty. CORR 236 (1988) 214
8. Berry D.J., Harmsen W.S., Ilstrup D., et al. Survivorship of uncemented proximally porous-coated components. CORR 319 (1995) 168
9. Malkani A.L., Lewallen D.G., Cabanela M.E., et al. Femoral component revision using an uncemented, proximally coated, long-stem prosthesis. J Arthroplasty 11 (1996) 411
10. Hedley A.K., Gruen T.A., and Ruoff D.P. Revision of failed total hip arthroplasties with uncemented porous-coated anatomic components. Clin Orthop 235 (1988) 75
11. Woolson S.T., and Delaney T.J. Failure of a proximally porous-coated femoral prosthesis in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 10S (1995) 22
12. Engh Jr. C.A., Hopper R.H., and Engh Sr. C.A. Distal ingrowth components. CORR 420 (2004) 135
13. Paprosky W.G., Greidanus N.V., and Antoniou J. Minimum 10-year results of extensively porous-coated stems in revision hip arthroplasty. CORR 369 (1999) 230
14. Moreland J.R., and Moreno M.A. Cementless femoral revision arthroplasty of the hip: minimum 5 years follow-up. CORR 393 (2001) 194
15. Cameron H.U. The long term success of modular proximal fixation stems in revision THA. J Arthroplasty 17S (2002) 138
16. Christie M.J., DeBoer D.K., Tingstad E.M., et al. Clinical experience with a modular noncemented femoral component in revision THA: 4 to 7 year results. J Arthroplasty 15 (2000) 840
17. Smith J.A., Dunn H.K., and Manaster B.J. Cementless femoral revision arthroplasty: 2- to 5-year results with a modular titanium alloy stem. J Arthroplasty 12 (1997) 194
18. Della Valle C.J., and Paprosky W.G. The femur in revision total hip arthroplasty evaluation and classification. CORR 420 (2004) 55
19. Ryd L. Roentgen stereogrammetric analysis of prosthetic fixation in the hip and knee joint. CORR 276 (1992) 56
20. Snorrason F., and Karrholm J. Early loosening of revision total hip arthroplasty. A roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis. J Arthroplasty (1990) 217
21. Franzen H., Mjoberg B., and Onnerfalt R. Early loosening of femoral components after cemented revision. A roentgen stereophotogrammetric study. J Bone Joint Surg 74B (1992) 721
22. Kobayashi A., Donnelly W.J., Scott G., et al. Early radiological observations may predict the long term survival of femoral hip prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg 79B (1997) 583
23. Krismer M., Biedermann R., Stockl B., et al. The prediction of failure of the stem in THR by measurement of early migration using EBRA-FCA. J Bone Joint Surg 81B (1999) 273
24. Kwong L.M., Miller J.M., and Lubinus P. A modular distal fixation option for proximal bone loss in revision THA. J Arthroplasty 18S (2003) 94
25. Murphy S.B., and Rodriguez J. Revision total hip arthroplasty with proximal bone loss. J Arthroplasty 19S (2004) 115
26. 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 124 (2004) 306
27. Wirtz D.C., Heller K.D., Holzworth U., et al. A modular femoral implant for uncemented stem revision THR. Int Orthop 24 (2000) 134
28. Pierson JL, Crowninshield RD, Earles DR. Fatigue fracture of a modular revision femoral component: a report of forty cases. AAOS 2005.
29. Busch C.A., Charles M.N., Bourne R.B., et al. Fractures of distally-fixed femoral stems after revision arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg 87B (2005) 1333
30. Crowninshield R.D., Maloney W.J., Wentz D.H., et al. The role of proximal femoral support in stress development within hip prostheses. CORR 420 (2004) 176