Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 4 of 4
Results per page:
The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 81-B, Issue 1 | Pages 135 - 142
1 Jan 1999
Kärrholm J Hultmark P Carlsson L Malchau H

We revised 24 consecutive hips with loosening of the femoral stem using impaction allograft and a cemented stem with an unpolished proximal surface. Repeated radiostereometric examinations for up to two years showed a slow rate of subsidence with a mean of 0.32 mm (−2.0 to +0.31). Fifteen cases followed for a further year showed the same mean subsidence after three years, indicating stabilisation. A tendency to retroversion of the stems was noted between the operation and the last follow-up. Retroversion was also recorded when displacement of the stem was studied in ten of the patients after two years. Repeated determination of bone mineral density showed an initial loss after six months, followed by recovery to the postoperative level at two years. Defects in the cement mantle and malalignment of the stem were often noted on postoperative radiographs, but did not correlate with the degrees of migration or displacement. After one year, increasing frequency of trabecular remodelling or resorption of the graft was observed in the greater trochanter and distal to the tip of the stem. Cortical repair was noted distally and medially (Gruen regions 3, 5 and 6). Migration of the stems was the lowest reported to date, which we attribute to the improved grafting technique and to the hardness of the graft.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 106-B, Issue SUPP_2 | Pages 23 - 23
2 Jan 2024
Dragonas C Waseem S Simpson A Leivadiotou D
Full Access

The advent of modular implants aims to minimise morbidity associated with revision of hemiarthroplasty or total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) to reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSR) by allowing retention of the humeral stem. This systematic review aimed to summarise outcomes following its use and reasons why modular humeral stems may be revised. A systematic review of Pubmed, Medline and EMBASE was performed according to PRISMA guidelines of all patients undergoing revision of a modular hemiarthroplasty or TSA to RSR. Primary implants, glenoid revisions, surgical technique and opinion based reports were excluded. Collected data included demographics, outcomes and incidence of complications. 277 patients were included, with a mean age of 69.8 years (44-91) and 119 being female. Revisions were performed an average of 30 months (6-147) after the index procedure, with the most common reason for revision being cuff failure in 57 patients. 165 patients underwent modular conversion and 112 underwent stem revision. Of those that underwent humeral stem revision, 18 had the stem too proximal, in 15 the stem was loose, 10 was due to infection and 1 stem had significant retroversion. After a mean follow up of 37.6 months (12-91), the Constant score improved from a mean of 21.8 to 48.7. Stem revision was associated with a higher complication rate (OR 3.13, 95% CI 1.82-5.39). The increased use of modular stems has reduced stem revision, however 40% of these implants still require revision due to intra-operative findings. Further large volume comparative studies between revised and maintained humeral stems post revision of modular implants can adequately inform implant innovation to further improve the stem revision rate


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 105-B, Issue SUPP_16 | Pages 27 - 27
17 Nov 2023
Arafa M Kalairajah Y Zaki E Habib M
Full Access

Abstract. Objective. Short-stem total hip arthroplasty (THA) aims to preserve the proximal bone stock for future revisions, so that the first revision should resemble a primary intervention rather than a revision. This study aimed to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes in revision THA after failed short stem versus after failed conventional stem THA. Methods. This study included forty-five patients with revision THA divided into three groups (15 each); group A: revision after short stem, group B: revision after conventional cementless stem and group C revision after conventional cemented stem. The studied groups were compared regarding 31 variables including demographic data, details of the primary and revision procedures, postoperative radiological subsidence, hospital stay, time for full weight bearing (FWB), preoperative and postoperative clinical scores. Results. Early stem subsidence (40%) was the main indication of revision in group A compared to peri-prosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs) (73.3%) and aseptic loosening (53.3%) in group B and C respectively (P=0.021). The mean time to revision was significantly shorter in group A (15 months) compared to 95.33 and 189.40 months in group B and C respectively. (P=0.005). Sixty % (9 patients) in group A were revised in the first year. The mean operative time, blood loss, postoperative blood transfusion and hospital stay were significantly lower in group A compared to group B and C (P<0.001, <0.001, 0.002 and 0.001 respectively). Revisions in group A were performed using either short stems (13.3%) or conventional stems (86.7%) whilst 80% of patients needed long stems and 20% of patients needed conventional stems in group B and C (P<0.001). The mean postoperative Harris Hip Score (HHS) at the latest follow up was 87.07, 87.53 and 85.47 in group A, B and C respectively. All PFFS had excellent results according to Beal's and Tower's criteria; all fractures healed and the implants were stable. Conclusion. The most common cause of failure of short stems is early stem subsidence. Short stem THA has specific indications and patient selection is very crucial. Preoperative templating for short stems and a detailed analysis of the individual patient anatomy in anteroposterior and lateral views are mandatory to predict the correct implant size more accurately. The use of intraoperative imaging can verify the sizing, implant position, and sufficient contact with the lateral cortex. Revision of short stem THA resembled the primary THA. If a standard implant can be used in a surgical revision instead of a longer revision stem, this can be considered as an advantage for the hip arthroplasty treatment concept. However, this only applies if the longevity of the first treatment with a short stem is comparable with that of a standard stem. Declaration of Interest. (b) declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research reported:I declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research project


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 95-B, Issue SUPP_31 | Pages 4 - 4
1 Aug 2013
Marsh A Nisar A Patil S Meek R
Full Access

Repeat revision hip replacements can lead to severe bone loss necessitating salvage procedures such as proximal or total femoral replacement. We present medium term outcomes from our experience of the Limb Preservation System (LPS) in patients with failed revision hip arthroplasties. All patients undergoing proximal femoral or total femoral replacement from 2003–2007 at our unit were reviewed. Data was collected preoperatively and at annual assessment post procedure for a minimum of 5 years. This included clinical review, functional outcome scores (WOMAC, Oxford Hip Score, Harris Hip Score) and radiographic evaluation. A total of 17 patients underwent femoral replacement (13 proximal, 4 total) using the LPS during the study period. Within this cohort there were 13 males and 4 females with a mean age of 64 years (range 47–86). Median follow up was 7 years (range 5–9 years). Primary diagnoses were DDH (7), Primary OA (5), RA (2), proximal femoral fracture (2) and phocomelia (1). Five patients (29%) required further revision surgery for infection (2 patients) or recurrent dislocations (3 patients). No stems required revision due to aseptic loosening or stem failure at 5–9 years. Compared to preoperative assessment, there was significant improvement in median outcome scores at 5 years (WOMAC increased by 33 points, Oxford hip score by16 points and Harris hip score by 43 points). 82% of patients maintained functional independence at latest review. The Limb Preservation System offers a salvage procedure for failed revision total hip arthroplasty with significant symptom and functional improvement in most patients at medium term follow up