Aims. The aim of this study was to evaluate the suitability of the tapered cone stem in total hip arthroplasty (THA) in patients with excessive femoral anteversion and after femoral osteotomy. Methods. We included patients who underwent THA using Wagner Cone due to proximal femur anatomical abnormalities between August 2014 and January 2019 at a single institution. We investigated implant survival time using the endpoint of dislocation and revision, and compared the prevalence of prosthetic impingements between the Wagner Cone, a tapered cone stem, and the Taperloc, a tapered wedge stem, through simulation. We also collected Oxford Hip Score (OHS), visual analogue scale (VAS) satisfaction, and VAS pain by postal survey in August 2023 and explored variables associated with those scores. Results. Of the 58 patients (62 hips), two (two hips) presented with dislocation or reoperation, and Kaplan-Meier analysis indicated a five-year survival rate of 96.7% (95% CI 92.4 to 100). Mean stem anteversion was 35.2° (SD 18.2°) for the Taperloc stem and 29.8° (SD 7.9°) for the
Single-stage revision is not widely pursued due to restrictive inclusion criteria. In this study, we evaluated the results of single-stage revision of chronically infected total hip arthroplasty (THA) using broad inclusion criteria and cementless implants. Between 2010 and 2016, 126 patients underwent routine single-stage revision with cementless reconstruction with powdered vancomycin or imipenem poured into the medullary cavity and re-implantation of cementless components. For patients with a culture-negative hip, fungal infections, and multidrug-resistant organisms, a direct intra-articular infusion of pathogen-sensitive antibiotics was performed postoperatively. Recurrence of infection and clinical outcomes were evaluated. Three patients died and 12 patients (none with known recurrent infection) were lost to follow-up. There were 111 remaining patients (60 male, 51 female) with a mean age of 58.7 (Aims
Patients and Methods
Tapered fluted titanium stems are increasingly
used for femoral revision arthroplasty. They are available in modular and
non-modular forms. Modularity has advantages when the bone loss
is severe, the proximal femur is mis shapen or the surgeon is unfamiliar
with the implant, but it introduces the risk of fracture of the
stem at the junction between it and the proximal body segment. For
that reason, and while awaiting intermediate-term results of more recently
introduced designs of this junction, non-modularity has attracted
attention, at least for straightforward revision cases. We review the risks and causes of fracture of tapered titanium
modular revision stems and present an argument in favour of the
more selective use of modular designs. Cite this article:
Revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) is challenging
when there is severe loss of bone in the proximal femur. The purpose
of this study was to evaluate the clinical and radiographic outcomes
of revision THA in patients with severe proximal femoral bone loss
treated with a fluted, tapered, modular femoral component. Between
January 1998 and December 2004, 92 revision THAs were performed
in 92 patients using a single fluted, tapered, modular femoral stem
design. Pre-operative diagnoses included aseptic loosening, infection
and peri-prosthetic fracture. Bone loss was categorised pre-operatively
as Paprosky types III-IV, or Vancouver B3 in patients with a peri-prosthetic
fracture. The mean clinical follow-up was 6.4 years (2 to 12). A
total of 47 patients had peri-operative complications, 27 of whom
required further surgery. However, most of these further operations
involved retention of a well-fixed femoral stem, and 88/92 femoral
components (97%) remained Revision THA in patients with extensive proximal femoral bone
loss using the Link MP fluted, tapered, modular stem led to a high
rate of osseointegration of the stem at mid-term follow-up. Cite this article:
We are currently facing an epidemic of periprosthetic
fractures around the hip. They may occur either during surgery or
post-operatively. Although the acetabulum may be involved, the femur
is most commonly affected. We are being presented with new, difficult
fracture patterns around cemented and cementless implants, and we
face the challenge of an elderly population who may have grossly
deficient bone and may struggle to rehabilitate after such injuries.
The correct surgical management of these fractures is challenging.
This article will review the current choices of implants and techniques
available to deal with periprosthetic fractures of the femur. Cite this article:
Non-modular tapered fluted, titanium stems are
available for use in femoral revision. The combination of taper
and flutes on the stem provides axial and rotational stability,
respectively. The material and surface properties of the stem promotes
bone on-growth. If the surgeon is confident and reasonably experienced
in the surgical use of this sort of design and the case is relatively
straightforward, a non-modular design is effective. It also potentially reduces
implant inventory, and circumvents the potential problems of taper
junction corrosion and fatigue fracture. There are reports of excellent
survival, good clinical and functional results and evidence of subsequent
increase in proximal bone stock. Cite this article: Bo
D. Regis, A. Sandri, I. Bonetti, M. Braggion, P. Bartolozzi. Femoral revision with the
Revision after failed femoral components may
be technically demanding due to loss of peri-prosthetic bone. This retrospective
study evaluated the long-term results of femoral revision using
the cementless
Endoprosthetic reconstruction following resection of 31 tumours of the proximal femur in 30 patients was performed using a Wagner SL femoral revision stem. The mean follow-up was 25.6 months (0.6 to 130.0). Of the 28 patients with a metastasis, 27 died within a mean follow-up period of 18.1 months (0.6 to 56.3) after the operation, and the remaining patient was excluded from the study 44.4 months post-operatively when the stem was removed. The two patients with primary bone tumours were still alive at the latest follow-up of 81.0 and 130.0 months, respectively. One stem only was removed for suspected low-grade infection 44.4 months post-operatively. The worst-case survival rate with removal of the stem for any cause and/or loss to follow-up was 80.0% (95% confidence interval 44.9 to 100) at 130.0 months. The mean Karnofsky index increased from 44.2% (20% to 70%) pre-operatively to 59.7% (0% to 100%) post-operatively, and the mean Merle d’Aubigné score improved from 4.5 (0 to 15) to 12.0 (0 to 18). The mean post-operative Musculoskeletal Tumour Society score was 62.4% (3.3% to 100%). The Wagner SL femoral revision stem offers an alternative to special tumour prostheses for the treatment of primary and secondary tumours of the proximal femur. The mid-term results are very promising, but long-term experience is necessary.
We reviewed 25 patients in whom a MUTARS megaprosthesis with a conical fluted stem had been implanted. There were three types of stem: a standard stem was used in 17 cases (three in the proximal femur, nine in the distal femur and five proximal tibia), a custom-made proximal femoral stem in four cases and a custom-made distal femoral stem in four cases. The mean age of the patients was 40.1 years (17 to 70) and the mean follow-up was for 2.5 years (0.9 to 7.4). At follow-up two patients had died from their disease: one was alive with disease and 22 were disease-free. One of 23 prostheses had been removed for infection and another revised to a cemented stem. The mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score was 24.9 (12 to 30) and the mean Karnofsky index was 82% (60% to 100%). There was no radiological evidence of loosening or subsidence. Stem stress shielding was seen in 11 patients and was marked in five of these. There were five complications, rupture of the extensor mechanism of the knee after extra-articular resection in two patients, deep venous thrombosis in one, septic loosening in one, and dislocation of the hip in one. The survival rate after seven years was 87% (95% confidence interval (CI) 83 to 91) for the patients and 95% (95% CI 91 to 99) for the megaprosthesis. A longer follow-up is needed to confirm these encouraging results.