Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

SINKING AND CLINICAL RESULTS OF THE CURVED CEMENTLESS MODULAR REVISION STEM REVITAN

7th Congress of the European Federation of National Associations of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Lisbon - 4-7 June, 2005



Abstract

Aim: The aim of this prospective study was to analyse the rate of sinking and the clinical results of the new cementless modular revision stem Revitan curved concerning the length of fixation of the implant and the technique of implantation (endofemoral compared with transfemoral).

Material and Methods: 51 cementless modular curved revision stems (Revitan curved) were implanted 17 times endofemoral and 34 times transfemoral. All operations were performed by the first author with 24 times a total exchange of the hip implants and 27 times an exchange of the stem. Patients were followed every 3 months in the first postoperative year and then every 6 months. Because sinking of a cementless implant occurs during the first postoperative year the minimum follow-up was 12 months (average follow-up was 22.5 + −12.6 months). Patients were evaluated clinically using the Harris Hip-Score and length of fixation of the implant as well as implant sinking was evaluated radiographically.

Results: The Harris Hip-Score increased from 45.7 preoperatively to 86.7 twelve months postoperative in endofemoral implanted stems and from 41.6 preoperatively to 81.2 twelve months postoperative in transfemoral implanted stems. The patients with transfemoral implanted stems had a significant higher amount of limping and positive Trendelenburg sign after the operation. With time the percentage decreased and reached nearly the same level as in patients with endofemoral implanted stems. 2 endofemoral and 1 transfemoral (with a fixation length of less than 3 cm) implanted stems showed a sinking of 5 mm. 2 transfemoral implanted stems had to be revised because of aseptic loosening. In both stems the fixation length was less than 3 cm in the first revision due to operative technical reasons.

Conclusion: The curved cementless revision stem Revitan shows encouraging results using the endofemoral and transfemoral technique. In transfemoral implantation a secure fixation can be reached with a fixation length of more than 3 cm (which is less than the usually recommended fixation length of 4 to 6 cm for cementless revision stems). Transfemoral implanted stems need a longer time of rehabilitation than endofemoral implanted stems

Theses abstracts were prepared by Professor Roger Lemaire. Correspondence should be addressed to EFORT Central Office, Freihofstrasse 22, CH-8700 Küsnacht, Switzerland.