To evaluate the hypothesis that failed osteosynthesis of periprosthetic
Vancouver type B1 fractures can be treated successfully with stem
revision using a transfemoral approach and a cementless, modular,
tapered revision stem with reproducible rates of fracture healing,
stability of the revision stem, and clinically good results. A total of 14 patients (11 women, three men) with a mean age
of 72.4 years (65 to 90) undergoing revision hip arthroplasty after
failed osteosynthesis of periprosthetic fractures of Vancouver type
B1 were treated using a transfemoral approach to remove the well-fixed
stem before insertion of a modular, fluted titanium stem which obtained
distal fixation. These patients were clinically and radiologically
followed up for a mean 52.2 months (24 to 144).Aims
Patients and Methods
We report our experience of revision total hip
replacement (THR) using the Revitan curved modular titanium fluted revision
stem in patients with a full spectrum of proximal femoral defects.
A total of 112 patients (116 revisions) with a mean age of 73.4
years (39 to 90) were included in the study. The mean follow-up
was 7.5 years (5.3 to 9.1). A total of 12 patients (12 hips) died
but their data were included in the survival analysis, and four
patients (4 hips) were lost to follow-up. The clinical outcome,
proximal bone regeneration and subsidence were assessed for 101
hips. The mean Harris Hip Score was 88.2 (45.8 to 100) after five years
and there was an increase of the mean Barnett and Nordin-Score,
a measure of the proximal bone regeneration, of 20.8 (-3.1 to 52.7).
Five stems had to be revised (4.3%), three (2.9%) showed subsidence,
five (4.3%) a dislocation and two of 85 aseptic revisions (2.3%)
a periprosthetic infection. At the latest follow-up, the survival with revision of the stem
as the endpoint was 95.7% (95% confidence interval 91.9% to 99.4%)
and with aseptic loosening as the endpoint, was 100%. Peri-prosthetic
fractures were not observed. We report excellent results with respect to subsidence, the risk
of fracture, and loosening after femoral revision using a modular
curved revision stem with distal cone-in-cone fixation. A successful
outcome depends on careful pre-operative planning and the use of
a transfemoral approach when the anatomy is distorted or a fracture
is imminent, or residual cement or a partially-secured existing
stem cannot be removed. The shortest appropriate stem should, in
our opinion, be used and secured with >
3 cm fixation at the femoral
isthmus, and distal interlocking screws should be used for additional
stability when this goal cannot be realised. Cite this article:
Periprosthetic femoral fractures are increasing in incidence, and typically occur in frail elderly patients. They are similar to pathological fractures in many ways. The aims of treatment are the same, including 'getting it right first time' with a single operation, which allows immediate unrestricted weightbearing, with a low risk of complications, and one that avoids the creation of stress risers locally that may predispose to further peri-implant fracture. The surgical approach to these fractures, the associated soft-tissue handling, and exposure of the fracture are key elements in minimizing the high rate of complications. This annotation describes the approaches to the femur that can be used to facilitate the surgical management of peri- and interprosthetic fractures of the femur at all levels using either modern methods of fixation or revision arthroplasty. Cite this article:
Instruments used in surgery which rotate or vibrate at a high frequency can produce potentially contaminated aerosols. Such tools are in use in cemented
We compared the length of hospitalisation, rate
of infection, dislocation of the hip and revision, and mortality following
primary hip and knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis in patients
with Alzheimer’s disease (n = 1064) and a matched control group
(n = 3192). The data were collected from nationwide Finnish health
registers. Patients with Alzheimer’s disease had a longer peri-operative
hospitalisation (median 13 days Cite this article:
Implantation of allograft bone is an integral part of revision surgery of the hip. One major concern with its use is the risk of transmission of infective agents. There are a number of methods of processing allograft bone in order to reduce this risk. One method requires washing the tissue using pulsed irrigation immediately before implantation. We report the incidence of deep bacterial infection in 138 patients (144 revision hip arthroplasties) who had undergone implantation of allograft bone. The bone used was fresh-frozen, non-irradiated and pulse-washed with normal saline before implantation. The deep infection rate at a minimum follow-up of one year was 0.7%. This method of processing appears to be associated with a very low risk of allograft-related bacterial infection.