Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 2 of 2
Results per page:
Bone & Joint Open
Vol. 3, Issue 3 | Pages 229 - 235
11 Mar 2022
Syam K Unnikrishnan PN Lokikere NK Wilson-Theaker W Gambhir A Shah N Porter M

Aims. With increasing burden of revision hip arthroplasty (THA), one of the major challenges is the management of proximal femoral bone loss associated with previous multiple surgeries. Proximal femoral arthroplasty (PFA) has already been popularized for tumour surgeries. Our aim was to describe the outcome of using PFA in these demanding non-neoplastic cases. Methods. A retrospective review of 25 patients who underwent PFA for non-neoplastic indications between January 2009 and December 2015 was undertaken. Their clinical and radiological outcome, complication rates, and survival were recorded. All patients had the Stanmore Implant – Modular Endo-prosthetic Tumour System (METS). Results. At mean follow-up of 5.9 years, there were no periprosthetic fractures. Clearance of infection was achieved in 63.6% of cases. One hip was re-revised to pseudo arthroplasty for deep infection. Instability was noted in eight of the hips (32%), of which seven needed further surgery. Out of these eight hips with instability, five had preoperative infection. Deep infection was noted in five of the hips (20%), of which four were primarily revised for infection. One patient had aseptic loosening of the femoral component and awaits revision surgery. The Kaplan-Meier survivorship free of revision of any component for any reason was 72% (95% confidence interval (CI) 51.3% to 92.7%), and for revisions of only femoral component for any reason was 96% (95% CI 86.3% to 105.7%) at five years. Conclusion. Dislocation and infection remain the major cause for failure, particularly in patients with pre-existing infection. The use of dual mobility cups, silver-coated implants, and less aggressive postoperative rehabilitation regimens would possibly aid in the reduction of complications. PFA performed in patients with periprosthetic fracture seem to fair better. This study supports the judicious use of PFA in non-oncological revision hip arthroplasties, and that they be performed by experienced revision arthroplasty surgeons. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(3):229–235


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 97-B, Issue 3 | Pages 312 - 317
1 Mar 2015
Amanatullah DF Howard JL Siman H Trousdale RT Mabry TM Berry DJ

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 in situ. Of the four components requiring revision, three were revised for infection and were well fixed at the time of revision; only one (1%) was revised for aseptic loosening. The most common complications were post-operative instability (17 hips, 19%) and intra-operative femoral fracture during insertion of the stem (11 hips, 12%). Diaphyseal stress shielding was noted in 20 hips (22%). There were no fractures of the femoral component. At the final follow-up 78% of patients had minimal or no pain.

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: Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B:312–17.