Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Using a Modular Femoral Implant in Paprosky Type III and IV Femoral Bone Loss

Journal of Arthroplasty

Volumn 27, Issue 8, 2012, Pages

  Desai, Rasesh R ^a   Malkani, Arthur L ^a   Hitt, Kirby D ^b   Jaffe, Fredrick F ^c   Schurman, John R ^d   Shen, Jianhua ^e  

^a University of Louisville School of Medicine   (United States)

^b SCOTT AND WHITE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

^c NYU HOSPITAL FOR JOINT DISEASES   (United States)

^d Advanced Orthopedic Associates PA   (United States)

^e STRYKER ORTHOPAEDICS   (United States)

Author keywords

Modular femoral stem; Paprosky type III and IV defect; Revision THA

Indexed keywords

AGED; ARTICLE; BONE DEFECT; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; FEMUR FRACTURE; FRACTURE DISLOCATION; HUMAN; IMPLANT; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OSTEOLYSIS; PEROPERATIVE COMPLICATION; POSTOPERATIVE INFECTION; PROSTHESIS LOOSENING; TOTAL HIP PROSTHESIS; TREATMENT FAILURE;

EID: 84865344527     PISSN: 08835403     EISSN: 15328406     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2012.03.039     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Kurtz S., Mowat F., Ong K., et al. 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.
2. Della Valle C.J., Paprosky W.G. 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.
3. Gramkow J., Jensen T.H., Varmarken J.E., et al. Long-term results after cemented revision of the femoral component in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2001, 16:777.
4. Engh C.A., Ellis T.J., Koralewicz L.M., et al. Extensively porous-coated femoral revision for severe femoral bone loss: minimum 10-year follow-up. J Arthroplasty 2002, 17:955.
5. Sporer S.M., Paprosky W.G. Femoral fixation in the face of considerable bone loss: the use of modular stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004, 429:227.
6. Hostner J., Hultmark P., Karrholm J., et al. Impaction technique and graft treatment in revisions of the femoral component: laboratory studies and clinical validation. J Arthroplasty 2001, 16:76.
7. Blackley H.R., Davis A.M., Hutchison C.R., et al. 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.
8. Malkani A.L., Settecerri J.J., Sim F.H., et al. Long-term results of proximal femoral replacement for non-neoplastic disorders. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1995, 77:351.
9. Kang M.N., Huddleston J.I., Hwang K., et al. Early outcome of a modular femoral component in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2008, 23:220.
10. Christie M.J., DeBoer D.K., Tingstad E.M., et al. Clinical experience with a modular non- cemented femoral component in revision total hip arthroplasty: 4- to 7-year results. J Arthroplasty 2000, 15:840.
11. McCarthy J.C., Lee J.A. Complex revision total hip arthroplasty with modular stems at a mean of 14 years. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2007, 465:166.
12. Callaghan J.J., Salvati E.A., Pellicci P.M., et al. 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.
13. Sporer S.M., Paprosky W.G. Revision total hip arthroplasty: the limits of fully coated stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2003, 417:203.
14. Hnat W.P., Conway J.S., Malkani A.L., et al. The effect of modular tapered fluted stems on proximal stress shielding in the human femur. J Arthroplasty 2009, 24:957.
15. Pierson J.L., Crowninshield R.D., Earles D.R. Fatigue fracture of a modular revision femoral component: a report of forty cases. 2005.
16. Malkani A.L., Yakkanti M.R. Surgical options for femoral reconstruction: the use of modular stems in surgical treatment of hip arthritis: reconstruction, replacement and revision 2010, 318. Saunders Elsevier, Philadelphia (Pa). W.J. Hozack, J. Parvisi, B. Bendon (Eds.).
17. Mulliken B.D., Rorabeck C.H., Bourne R.B. Uncemented revision total hip arthroplasty: a 4-to-6-year review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1996, 325:156.
18. Malkani A.L., Lewallen D.G., Cabanela M.E., et al. Femoral component revision using an uncemented, proximally coated, long-stem prosthesis. J Arthroplasty 1996, 11:411.
19. Woolson S.T., Delaney T.J. Failure of a proximally porous-coated femoral prosthesis in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 1995, 10(Suppl):S22.
20. Kwong L.M., Miller A.J., 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.
21. Rodriguez J., Fada R., Murphy S.B., et al. 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.
22. Wirtz D.C., Heller K.D., Holzwarth U., et al. A modular femoral implant for uncemented stem revision in THR. Int Orthop 2000, 24:134.
23. 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 Surg 2004, 124:306.
24. Koster G., Walde T.A., Willert H.G. Five- to 10-year results using a noncemented modular revision stem without bone grafting. J Arthroplasty 2008, 23:964.
25. Garbuz D.S., Toms A., Masri B.A., et al. Improved outcome in femoral revision arthroplasty with tapered fluted modular titanium stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006, 453:199.
26. Cameron H.U. The long-term success of modular proximal fixation stems in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2002, 17(4 Suppl 1):138.
27. Hummel M., Malkani A.L., Yakkanti M.R., et al. Decreased dislocations following revision THA using larger femoral head size and posterior capsular repair. J Arthroplasty 2009, 24(6 Suppl):73.