A new classification for proximal femur bone defects in conservative hip arthroplasty revisions.
Arthroplasty
Conservative
Hip revision
Total hip replacement
Journal
International orthopaedics
ISSN: 1432-5195
Titre abrégé: Int Orthop
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 7705431
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 2019
10 2019
Historique:
received:
31
10
2018
accepted:
04
11
2018
pubmed:
13
12
2018
medline:
7
7
2020
entrez:
13
12
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
In the last three decades, total hip replacement in young patient became a habitual procedure. Principles of bone preservation are pushing many surgeons to implant conservative femoral components in patient younger than 65 years. Despite an overall good survivorship and clinical outcomes of conservative implants, failed cases are reported and the need to revise a conservative femoral component became an occasional procedure (with high prevalence of failed resurfacing implants). During conservative femoral component revisions, we analyzed proximal bone stock preservation, considering the type of original component removed, etiology of failure, timing of revision, and femoral explantation technique. We identified four patterns of proximal femoral changes (types I-IV). We suggest, for each of them, a revision strategy directed toward a "conservative revision procedure" using conservative or primary component. Out of our 21 cases, none underwent further revision due to mechanical failure (follow-up ranging from 6 to 152 months, mean 54 months). We had two case of re-operation: one for early septic loosening and one for prosthetic modular neck fracture. If literature offers well-established guidelines to femoral revision of conventional stems, there is, on the other hand, a lack of data about revision strategies in presence of failed conservative implants. Although the mean follow-up of our procedures is still too short (4.5 years) to give final conclusions, we would leave a message: a conservative hip arthroplasty is not a "one-time" opportunity for young and active people. A "conservative revision" is a valid option for at least a part of them, when an early failure of primary procedure occurred.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30539217
doi: 10.1007/s00264-018-4229-8
pii: 10.1007/s00264-018-4229-8
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2209-2216Références
Int Orthop. 2018 May;42(5):1007-1013
pubmed: 28988365
Int Orthop. 2017 Feb;41(2):271-275
pubmed: 27131803
Int Orthop. 2018 Dec;42(12):2787-2795
pubmed: 29869013
Int Orthop. 2015 Oct;39(10):1927-32
pubmed: 26300373
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1979 Jun;(141):17-27
pubmed: 477100
Int Orthop. 2015 Oct;39(10):2005-10
pubmed: 26318883
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2000 Sep;82(7):952-8
pubmed: 11041581
Hip Int. 2007 Jul-Sep;17(3):179-82
pubmed: 19197866
Int Orthop. 2018 Sep;42(9):2069-2076
pubmed: 29651610
Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2006 Feb;220(2):333-44
pubmed: 16669399
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004 Sep;86(9):1874-7
pubmed: 15342747
J Orthop Traumatol. 2008 Mar;9(1):49-54
pubmed: 19384482
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013 Jul;471(7):2259-65
pubmed: 23412731
BMC Health Serv Res. 2004 Dec 27;4(1):39
pubmed: 15620345
Musculoskelet Surg. 2018 Apr;102(1):1-9
pubmed: 28669102
Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2002 Aug;31(8):459-64
pubmed: 12216969
Int Orthop. 2016 Nov;40(11):2261-2269
pubmed: 26923378
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008 Dec;90(12):1576-9
pubmed: 19043127