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

REVISION OF PERIPROSTHETIC FRACTURES AFTER TOTAL HIP REPLACEMENT USING A PROXIMAL FEMORAL REPLACEMENT MODULAR CEMENTED STEM



Abstract

With an increasing number of primary total hip arthroplasties being carried out worldwide, and a lack or inadequate follow-up leading to delays in revision surgery, more complex problems including periprosthetic fracture have to be dealt with at revision surgery.

Unawareness, that clinical results do not reflect the mechanical state of the arthroplasty, together with strain shielding in the femur, progressive endosteal cavitation and stem migration may result in deterioration of the periprosthetic bone stock and femoral fracture.

Acute onset due to the fracture, severe symptoms and poor medical status of the patient usually demands immediate surgical intervention.

We have developed a modular cemented femoral component for revisions where deficiency of the proximal femur, or the femoral fracture, demands a variable extra-femoral portion of the stem. The shaft of the stem is 200mm or longer allowing the extra-medullary position to vary up to 15cm. It has a double polished taper

Between 1985 and 2007 the stem has been used in 79 revisions where there was a periprosthetic fracture. The mean age at surgery was 70 years (37–93) and the mean follow-up was 4 years (0–14 years 10 months). In 86% the primary surgery had been performed at another hospital. In 80% the fracture had united at one year. The main post-operative problem was dislocation in 10 cases between 7 days and 9 years after revision and was most common where the abductors were absent. 2 patients died in the post-operative period. Five hips have been re-revised, 3 for dislocation, 1 for Infection and 1 stem loosening.

Overall revision for periprosthetic fracture using this implant has given good results.

Although the results of this type of surgery are encouraging, this must not be considered as an alternative to regular follow-up and early intervention in cases where progressive loosening and deteriorating bone stock are likely to lead to a more demanding surgery.

Correspondence should be addressed to: EFORT Central Office, Technoparkstrasse 1, CH – 8005 Zürich, Switzerland. Email: office@efort.org