header advert
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

SINGLE SURGEON SERIES’ EXPERIENCE WITH THE REEF™ IMPLANT IN FEMORAL RECONSTRUCTION AND REVISION HIP ARTHROPLASTY



Abstract

Introduction: REEF™ is a modular distal locking implant, indicated for use in extensive loosening of femoral stems, peri-prosthetic hip fractures, and tumour surgery requiring distal anchorage to allow resection of the femur proximally. Very little experience with the REEF™ has been reported.

Objective: We report on a single surgeon series of 16 patients who underwent femoral reconstruction using the REEF™ during revision hip arthroplasty (THA).

Methods and Results: This is a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data on 16 patients (14 females) who underwent revision THA using the REEF™, between 1998 to 2007with a mean follow-up of 16 months (range, 3 to 60).

Indications were peri-prosthetic fractures in 9 cases (Vancouver B1 in one case, B2 in 4 cases and B3 in 4), aseptic loosening with significant bone loss in 3 (Paprosky IIIA in one case, Paprosky IIB in one and Type IV in one), osteolysis (Paprosky IV) secondary to infection in 1, non-union of peri-prosthetic fracture in 2 (Vancouver B2 and B3) and fracture around a spacer in one case.

The mean HHS at 3 months post-operatively was 72 (range, 57 to 76). The median pre-operative/pre-injury University of California, Los Angeles hip rating system (UCLA) was 1. The median UCLA at longest follow-up was 3.5 (range, 1 to 4) with 10 patients having a score greater than 3. Mean time to clinical evidence of implant integration was 4 months (range, 2 to 12). No evidence of subsidence was noted. Four dislocations were seen. No dislocation was seen in the 6 patients who had a Posterior Lip Augmentation Device (PLAD™) inserted at the time of revision THA. One stem fracture occurred requiring revision surgery with a longer REEF™ implant. Two patients died in the immediate post-operative period.

Conclusion: Results of revision THA using the REEF™ implant are encouraging. We recommend the use of the REEF™ with the judicious use of PLAD™ in difficult revision THA.

Correspondence should be addressed to BHS c/o BOA, at the Royal College of Surgeons, 35–43 Lincoln’s Inn Fields, London, WC2A 3PE, England.