Introduction. The management of periprosthetic pelvic bone loss is a challenging problem in hip revision surgery. This study evaluates the minimum 10-year clinical and radiographic outcome of major column structural allografts combined with the Burch-Schneider antiprotrusio cage for acetabular reconstruction. Methods. From January 1992 to August 2005, 106 hips with periprosthetic osteolysis underwent
Introduction. The objective of this study was to compare the performance of the Explant Acetabular Cup Removal System (Zimmer), which has been the favored system for many surgeons during hip revision surgery, and the new EZout Powered
First-time
Background. Hip resurfacing has resurged in the last decade due to a renewed interest in metal on metal bearing. One of the proposed advantages is ease of revision of the femoral component. Short term functional results after femoral revision are similar to those after conventional total hip replacement. Survival and function after revision of the acetabular component only or of both components have not been reported. We aimed to assess hip function and implant survival after revision of the acetabular component for failed Birmingham hip resurfacing (BHR). Methods. The Oswestry Outcome Centre collected data prospectively on 5000 patients who underwent hip resurfacing between 1997 and 2002. Of these, 182 hips were revised: 42% had revision of the femoral component only, 8% revision of the acetabular component only, and 50% revision of both components. This study analyzed patients who had revision of the acetabular component, either in isolation or in combination with the femoral component. Results. In the isolated
Introduction and Objective. The surgical strategy for
We performed 83 consecutive cemented revision total hip arthroplasties in 77 patients between 1977 and 1983 using improved cementing techniques. One patient (two hips) was lost to follow-up. The remaining 76 patients (81 hips) had an average age at revision of 63.7 years (23 to 89). At the final follow-up 18 hips (22%) had had a reoperation, two (2.5%) for sepsis, three (4%) for dislocation and 13 (16%) for aseptic loosening. The incidence of rerevision for aseptic femoral loosening was 5.4% and for aseptic acetabular loosening 16%. These results confirm that cemented femoral revision is a durable option in revision hip surgery when improved cementing techniques are used, but that cemented