Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 5 of 5
Results per page:
Applied filters
General Orthopaedics

Include Proceedings
Dates
Year From

Year To
Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 94-B, Issue SUPP_XXXIX | Pages 173 - 173
1 Sep 2012
Rogers B Garbedian S Kuchinad R MacDonald M Backstein D Safir O Gross A
Full Access

Introduction. Revision hip arthroplasty with massive proximal femoral bone loss remains challenging. Whilst several surgical techniques have been described, few have reported long term supporting data. A proximal femoral allograft (PFA) may be used to reconstitute bone stock in the multiply revised femur with segmental bone loss of greater than 8 cm. This study reports the outcome of largest case series of PFA used in revision hip arthroplasty. Methods. Data was prospectively collected from a consecutive series of 69 revision hip cases incorporating PFA and retrospective analyzed. Allografts of greater than 8 cm in length (average 14cm) implanted to replace deficient bone stock during revision hip surgery between 1984 and 2000 were included. The average age at surgery was 56 years (range 32–84) with a minimum follow up of 10 years and a mean of 15.8 years (range). Results. From the original cohort four patients had died with the original PFA, 21 (30.4%) patients required further surgery with 14 (20.3%) of these needing revisions of the femoral component. The mean time to femoral revision was 9.5 years and Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis demonstrates a 79.9% PFA survivorship at 20 years. Discussion. Proximal femoral allograft affords long lasting reconstruction of the femoral component in revision hip surgery. We advocate PFA as an attractive option in the reconstruction of the hip in the presence of significant segmental bone loss in younger patients


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 96-B, Issue SUPP_12 | Pages 103 - 103
1 Jul 2014
Paprosky W
Full Access

The goals of revision arthroplasty of the hip are to restore the anatomy and achieve stable fixation for new acetabular and femoral components. It is important to restore bone stock, thereby creating an environment for stable fixation for the new components. The bone defects encountered in revision arthroplasty of the hip can be classified either as contained (cavitary) or uncontained (segmental). Contained defects on both the acetabular and femoral sides can be addressed by morselised bone graft that is compacted into the defect. Severe uncontained defects are more of a problem particularly on the acetabular side where bypass fixation such as distal fixation on the femoral side is not really an alternative. Most authors agree that the use of morselised allograft bone for contained defects is the treatment of choice as long as stable fixation of the acetabular component can be achieved and there is a reasonable amount of contact with bleeding host bone for eventual ingrowth and stabilisation of the cup. On the femoral side, contained defects can be addressed with impaction grafting for very young patients or bypass fixation in the diaphysis of the femur using more extensively coated femoral components or taper devices. Segmental defects on the acetabular side have been addressed with structural allografts for the past 15 to 20 years. These are indicated in younger individuals with Type 3A defects. Structural grafts are unsuccessful in Type 3B defects. Alternatives to the structural allografts are now being utilised with shorter but encouraging results in most multiply operated hips with bone loss. New porous metals such as trabecular metal (tantalum), which has a high porosity similar to trabecular bone and also has a high coefficient of friction, provide excellent initial stability. The porosity provides a very favorable environment for bone ingrowth and bone graft remodeling. Porous metal acetabular components are now more commonly used when there is limited contact with bleeding host bone. Porous metal augments of all sizes are being used instead of structural allografts in most situations. On the femoral side, metaphyseal bone loss, whether contained or uncontained, is most often addressed by diaphyseal fixation with long porous or tapered implants, modular if necessary. Distal fixation requires at least 4 centimeters of diaphyseal bone and in Type IV femurs, a choice must be made between a mega prosthesis or a proximal femoral allograft. The proximal femoral allograft can restore bone stock for future surgery in younger patients. The mega prosthesis which is more appropriate in the older population may require total femoral replacement if there is not enough diaphyseal bone for distal fixation with cement. Cortical struts are used for circumferential diaphyseal bone defects to stabilise proximal femoral allografts, to bypass stress risers and to serve as a biological plate for stabilising peri-prosthetic fractures


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 94-B, Issue SUPP_XXIII | Pages 86 - 86
1 May 2012
Nusem I Morgan D
Full Access

We have followed a consecutive series of revision hip arthroplasties, performed for severe femoral bone loss using anatomic specific proximal femoral allografts. Forty-nine revision hip arthroplasties, using anatomic specific proximal femoral allografts longer than five centimetres were followed for a mean of 10.4 years. The mean preoperative HHS improved from 42.9 points to 76.9 points postoperatively. Six hips (12.2%) were further revised, four for non-union and aseptic failure of the implant (8.2%), one for infection (2%), and one for host step-cut fracture (2%). Junctional union was observed in 44 hips (90%). Three hips underwent re-attachment of the greater trochanter for trochanteric escape (6.1%). Asymptomatic non-union of the greater trochanter was noticed in three hips (6.1%). Moderate allograft resorption was observed in five hips (10.2%). Two fractures of the host step-cut occurred (4.1%). There were four dislocations (8.2%), two of them developed in conjunction with trochanteric escape. By definition of success as increase of HHS by 20 points or more, and no need for any subsequent re-operation related to the allograft and/or the implant, a 75.5% rate of success was found. Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis predicted 73% rate of survival at 12 years, with the need for further revision of the allograft and/or implant as the end point. We conclude that the good medium-term results with the use of large anatomic- specific femoral allografts justify their continued use in cases of revision hip arthroplasty with severe bone stock loss


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 95-B, Issue SUPP_15 | Pages 39 - 39
1 Mar 2013
Chung PH Kang S Kim J Kim YS Lee HM
Full Access

A seventy-five-year-old female patient presented with pain and deformity of her left leg of three days duration. Hybrid THRA has been done 11 years ago at her left hip for the treatment of osteoarthritis. Massive osteolysis and pathologic fracture were observed on plain radiograph (Fig. 1). Revision THRA using an allograft prosthesis composite (APC) was planned for solution of extensive bone loss of the proximal femur. Surgical exposure was performed through extended trochanteric osteotomy with the patient supine. Step-cut osteotomy was done at the remained proximal part of host femur to make match with the distal part of APC. Meticulous removal of granulation tissues and remaining cement was done. As Acetabular cup was stable, 60 mm sized high-walled polyethylene liner was exchanged. Calcar reconstruction prosthesis was cemented into a proximal femoral allograft measuring 15 cm and cement at the vicinity of the step-cut osteotomy was removed for later bony union at interface. After solid fixation of APC with cement, the distal half of APC was cemented with the host femur. Step-cut osteotomy was wired and autogenous bone grafts from the greater trochanter were added at the interface. Leg length and stability were rechecked using a standard necked 28 mm metal head and reduction was done stably. Greater trochanter was fixed over the trimmed proximal allograft with multiple wiring and paper-thin host femur was enveloped around the femoral allograft using absorbable sutures. Following insertion of the closed suction drainage drains, closure was done as routine fashion and healing of the wound was uneventful (Fig. 2). An abduction brace was applied post operatively for a period of four weeks. Crutch walking with partial weight bearing was started at four weeks and crutch protection was applied for a period of six months. Incorporation of allograft with the host bone was observed on two-year follow-up radiographs. At seven-year follow-up, the patient walks well with a mild limp, and Harris score is 90. We report on a seven-year follow-up case of revision THRA with APC with references (Fig. 3)


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 94-B, Issue SUPP_XLI | Pages 30 - 30
1 Sep 2012
Donald S Bateman E
Full Access

Massive uncontained glenoid defects are a difficult surgical problem requiring reconstruction in the setting of either primary or revision total shoulder arthroplasty. Our aim is to present a new one-stage technique that has been developed in our institution for glenoid reconstruction in the setting of massive uncontained glenoid bone loss. We utilise a modified delto-pectoral approach to perform our dual biology allograft autograft glenoid reconstruction. The native glenoid and proximal femoral allograft are prepared and shaped to create a precisely matched contact surface, which permits axial compression to secure fixation. The surface of the glenoid is lateralised to at least the level of the coracoid. The central cancellous femoral allograft is removed and impaction autografting is performed prior to implantation of a glenoid base plate with 25-mm long centre peg. Two screws are inserted into the best quality native scapular bone available to ensure compression. A reverse shoulder arthroplasty is implanted. We have performed our dual-biology reconstruction of the glenoid in combination with reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in 8 patients to date. The technique has been performed in the setting of massive uncontained glenoid defects without prostheses as well as in revisions from failed hemiarthroplasties and total shoulder arthroplasties. Our post-operative follow-up is now up to 32 months. CT scanning as early as 6 months demonstrates incorporation of the graft. There has been no evidence of loosening. None of our cases have been complicated by infection or peri-prosthetic fracture and there have been no dislocations. One patient sustained an acromial stress fracture at 9 months post-operatively after lifting a 100-pound gas cylinder. This was diagnosed on bone scan, had no impact on the construct and was managed in a sling for comfort. Another patient has developed Nerot grade I notching which substantially in all patients, with an average improvement of 6.6 on a 10-point scale. Our dual biology allograft-autograft reconstruction is a useful and elegant technique in the setting of massive uncontained defects of the glenoid, which permits the implantation of a reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. We believe this technique to be reproducible and uses materials that are both readily available and familiar