header advert
Results 1 - 1 of 1
Results per page:
Applied filters
Content I can access

Include Proceedings
Dates
Year From

Year To
Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 84-B, Issue SUPP_III | Pages 280 - 280
1 Nov 2002
Somerville R Kyd R
Full Access

Aim: To review a single surgeon’s experience of EIG for femoral and acetabular revision arthroplasty.

Method: A retrospective review of EIG revisions from Waikato Hospital from May, 1995 to November, 2000. The notes and x-rays of patients from this time were reviewed. All x-rays were reviewed by the senior author.

Results: There were thirty-two revisions using the EIG system. The indication for revision in all cases was aseptic loosening of either or both of the acetabular or femoral components. There were 14 men and 12 women. Four patients had bilateral revisions. One required bilateral revisions to be repeated. The average age was 79 years and nine months (range: 53 to 90 years). The average time from initial hip replacement to revision was 10.4 years (range: 13 months to 24 years).

Sixteen revisions had EIG to femur and acetabulum. Four acetabular cups and 10 femoral stems were revised with EIG alone or in combination with a replacement component.The average period of follow-up was 34 months. One acetabulum was revised for recurrent dislocation. Three other hips dislocated in the post-operative period. Two femoral stems (one patient) were revised again with EIG for subsidence. One is now stable, the other has been exchanged for a Solution stem because of repeated subsidence. The histological specimens taken from these showed the grafted bone was necrotic. One other stem subsided 2mm. There were two intraoperative femoral shaft fractures.

Conclusions: EIG is one solution for complicated revision in the presence of proximal femoral bone stock loss. Subsidence requiring re-revision was been a problem with one patient.