Revision total hip arthroplasty with a porous-coated modular stem : 5 to 10 years followup

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research

Volumn 468, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 1310-1315

  Lakstein, Dror ^a   Backstein, David ^a   Safir, Oleg ^a   Kosashvili, Yona ^a   Gross, Allan E ^a  

^a MOUNT SINAI HOSPITAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BONE PROSTHESIS; BONE RADIOGRAPHY; BONE REMODELING; ENDOPROSTHESIS LOOSENING; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; HUMAN; KINEMATICS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MATERIAL COATING; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; POSTOPERATIVE INFECTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REOPERATION; SURVIVAL RATE; TOTAL HIP PROSTHESIS;

EID: 77953292612     PISSN: 0009921X     EISSN: 15281132     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11999-009-0937-0     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Barrack RL. Orthopaedic crossfire: stem modularity is unnecessary in revision total hip arthroplasty: in the affirmative. J Arthroplasty. 2003;18(3 suppl 1):98-100.
2. 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;83:1023-1031.
3. Böhm P, Bischel O. The use of tapered stems for femoral revision surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;420:148-159.
4. 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;67:1074-1085.
5. Cameron HU. The long-term success of modular proximal fixation stems in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2002;17(4 suppl 1):138-141.
6. Cameron HU. Orthopaedic crossfire: stem modularity is unnecessary in revision total hip arthroplasty: in opposition. J Arthroplasty. 2003;18(3 suppl 1):101-103.
7. Dalury DF, Gonzales RA, Adams MJ. Minimum 5-year results in 96 consecutive hips treated with a tapered titanium stem system. J Arthroplasty. 2008 Dec 3. [Epub ahead of print].
8. Engh CA Jr, Hopper RH Jr, Engh CA Sr. Distal ingrowth components. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;420:135-141.
9. Garbuz DS, Toms A, Masri BA, Duncan CP. Improved outcome in femoral revision arthroplasty with tapered fluted modular titanium stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;453:199-202.
10. Grünig R, Morscher E, Ochsner PE. Three- to 7-year results with the uncemented SL femoral revision prosthesis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1997;116:187-197.
11. Harris WH. Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An endresult study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1969;51:737-755.
12. Hungerford DS, Jones LC. The rationale of cementless revision of cemented arthroplasty failures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988;235:12-24.
13. Kang MN, Huddleston JI, Hwang K, Imrie S, Goodman SB. Early outcome of a modular femoral component in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2008;23:220-225.
14. Köster G, Walde TA, Willert HG. Five- to 10-year results using a noncemented modular revision stem without bone grafting. J Arthroplasty. 2008;23:964-970.
15. Krishnamurthy AB, MacDonald SJ, Paprosky WG. 5- to 13-year follow-up study on cementless femoral components in revision surgery. J Arthroplasty. 1997;12:839-847.
16. Kwong LM, Miller AJ, Lubinus P. 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(3 suppl 1): 94-97.
17. Leopold SS, Rosenberg AG. Current status of impaction allografting for revision of a femoral component. Instr Course Lect. 2000;49:111-118.
18. Malkani AL, Settecerri JJ, Sim FH, Chao EY, Wallrichs SL. Long-term results of proximal femoral replacement for nonneoplastic disorders. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1995;77:351-356.
19. McAuley JP, Engh CA Jr. Femoral fixation in the face of considerable bone loss: cylindrical and extensively coated femoral components. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;429:215-221.
20. McCarthy JC, Lee JA. Complex revision total hip arthroplasty with modular stems at a mean of 14 years. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;465:166-169.
21. Moreland JR, Moreno MA. Cementless femoral revision arthroplasty of the hip: minimum 5 years followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;393:194-201.
22. Mroczkowski ML, Hertzler JS, Humphrey SM, Johnson T, Blanchard CR. Effect of impact assembly on the fretting corrosion of modular hip tapers. J Orthop Res. 2006;24:271-279.
23. Mulroy WF, Harris WH. Revision total hip arthroplasty with use of so-called second-generation cementing techniques for aseptic loosening of the femoral component: a fifteen-yearaverage follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1996;78:325-330.
24. Paprosky WG, Greidanus NV, Antoniou J. Minimum 10-yearresults of extensively porous-coated stems in revision hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999;369:230-242.
25. Rodriguez JA, Fada R, Murphy SB, Rasquinha VJ, Ranawat CS. Two-year to five-year follow-up of femoral defects in femoral revision treated with the Link MP modular stem. J Arthroplasty. 2008 Oct 31. [Epub ahead of print].
26. Safir O, Kellett CF, Flint M, Backstein D, Gross AE. Revision of the deficient proximal femur with a proximal femoral allograft. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467:206-212.
27. Saleh KJ, Holtzman J, Gafni A, Saleh L, Davis A, Resig S, Gross AE. 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: 1040-1046.
28. Sporer SM, Paprosky WG. Revision total hip arthroplasty: the limits of fully coated stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;417: 203-209.
29. Sporer SM, Paprosky WG. Femoral fixation in the face of considerable bone loss: the use of modular stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;429:227-231.
30. Wagner H, Wagner M. Cone prosthesis for the hip joint. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2000;120:88-95.