Promising results of revision total hip arthroplasty using a hexagonal, modular, tapered stem in cases of aseptic loosening.
Aged
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip
/ adverse effects
Female
Femur
/ surgery
Hip Joint
/ physiopathology
Hip Prosthesis
/ adverse effects
Humans
Kaplan-Meier Estimate
Male
Middle Aged
Prosthesis Design
/ instrumentation
Prosthesis Failure
Reoperation
/ methods
Retrospective Studies
Risk Factors
Treatment Outcome
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
27
01
2020
accepted:
26
04
2020
entrez:
24
6
2020
pubmed:
24
6
2020
medline:
26
8
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Modular stems are widely used in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) with aseptic loosening being a common reason for revision. Despite the good results reported on the use of modular stem designs, there are only few studies focusing on aseptic revisions and few studies on a hexagonal stem design. The goal of this study is to determine stem survival, clinical and functional outcome along with possible risk factors for implant failure in aseptic revision THA. We retrospectively identified 53 patients with aseptic THA revision using a modular hexagonal stem with a minimum follow-up of two years. Femoral bone loss, radiographic and clinical outcomes as well as function measured using the Harris Hip Score (HHS) was assessed. Patients' previous medical history was analyzed for comorbidities and the body mass index. Stem survival was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Possible risk factors for implant failure were analyzed using the log-rank test. The median age at revision was 69 (IQR 62-73) with a median follow up of 74 months. Implant survival rates amounted to 90.4% at 3 and 5 years. The median HHS improved by 47 points (34 (IQR 22-47) vs 81 (IQR 59-90) p<0.001). There was a reduced implant survival after 5 years when the revision stem was used following a previous cemented stem (83.4% vs 100%, p = 0.04). A modular, hexagonal stem can be successfully used in aseptic revision THA with remarkable functional results and excellent survivorship. Revision of a cemented stem using this implant might result in reduced survival which must be considered when planning treatment.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Modular stems are widely used in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) with aseptic loosening being a common reason for revision. Despite the good results reported on the use of modular stem designs, there are only few studies focusing on aseptic revisions and few studies on a hexagonal stem design. The goal of this study is to determine stem survival, clinical and functional outcome along with possible risk factors for implant failure in aseptic revision THA.
METHODS
We retrospectively identified 53 patients with aseptic THA revision using a modular hexagonal stem with a minimum follow-up of two years. Femoral bone loss, radiographic and clinical outcomes as well as function measured using the Harris Hip Score (HHS) was assessed. Patients' previous medical history was analyzed for comorbidities and the body mass index. Stem survival was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Possible risk factors for implant failure were analyzed using the log-rank test. The median age at revision was 69 (IQR 62-73) with a median follow up of 74 months.
RESULTS
Implant survival rates amounted to 90.4% at 3 and 5 years. The median HHS improved by 47 points (34 (IQR 22-47) vs 81 (IQR 59-90) p<0.001). There was a reduced implant survival after 5 years when the revision stem was used following a previous cemented stem (83.4% vs 100%, p = 0.04).
CONCLUSION
A modular, hexagonal stem can be successfully used in aseptic revision THA with remarkable functional results and excellent survivorship. Revision of a cemented stem using this implant might result in reduced survival which must be considered when planning treatment.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32574168
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233035
pii: PONE-D-20-02437
pmc: PMC7310743
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0233035Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: Prof. Georg Gosheger, Dr. Burkhard Möllenbeck, Dr. Thomas Ackmann and Dr. Tom Schmidt- Bräkling declare not to have any competing interests regarding this publication. Dr. Jan Schwarze, Dr. Christoph Theil and Prof. Ralf Dieckmann declare to have one financial competing interest: Travel grants and honoraria for speaking or participation at meetings have been paid by implantcast GmbH (Buxtehude Germany). This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.
Références
Bone Joint J. 2015 Jan;97-B(1):71-5
pubmed: 25568416
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006 Sep;450:164-71
pubmed: 16691142
Hip Int. 2015 Jul-Aug;25(4):380-7
pubmed: 26351121
J Arthroplasty. 2018 May;33(5):1309-1314.e2
pubmed: 29551303
Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb. 1997 Jul-Aug;135(4):270-80
pubmed: 9381761
World J Orthop. 2014 Nov 18;5(5):614-22
pubmed: 25405090
J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373-83
pubmed: 3558716
Orthopade. 2011 Dec;40(12):1084-94
pubmed: 22109589
Arthroplast Today. 2018 Aug 31;4(3):306-309
pubmed: 30186910
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2013 Jan 11;14:19
pubmed: 23311769
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1969 Jun;51(4):737-55
pubmed: 5783851
J Arthroplasty. 2015 Mar;30(3):435-8
pubmed: 25534955
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017 May 17;99(10):873-881
pubmed: 28509828
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1987 Jan;69(1):45-55
pubmed: 3818732
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016 Jan 6;98(1):40-7
pubmed: 26738902
J Arthroplasty. 1997 Dec;12(8):839-47
pubmed: 9458248
Bone Joint J. 2017 Apr;99-B(4 Supple B):27-32
pubmed: 28363891
Int Orthop. 2015 Sep;39(9):1709-13
pubmed: 25690924
Am J Epidemiol. 2011 Mar 15;173(6):676-82
pubmed: 21330339
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011 May;469(5):1507-10
pubmed: 20809166
J Arthroplasty. 2014 Aug;29(8):1594-7
pubmed: 24768500
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011 May;469(5):1401-5
pubmed: 21365337
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2012 Apr;20(4):214-22
pubmed: 22474091
Orthop Clin North Am. 1998 Apr;29(2):319-29
pubmed: 9553577
J Arthroplasty. 2017 Jul;32(7):2088-2092
pubmed: 28336249
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011 Oct 06;12:222
pubmed: 21978244
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011 Feb;469(2):476-82
pubmed: 20865464
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2013 Oct;21(10):601-12
pubmed: 24084434
Instr Course Lect. 1995;44:293-304
pubmed: 7797866
J Arthroplasty. 2017 Jul;32(7):2301-2306
pubmed: 28262451
Hip Int. 2010 Apr-Jun;20(2):136-42
pubmed: 20544661
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014 Nov 26;15:398
pubmed: 25428415
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017 Mar;475(3):917-921
pubmed: 27484412
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011 Jan 5;93(1):57-65
pubmed: 21209269
Hip Int. 2018 Jan;28(1):84-89
pubmed: 29027190
J Arthroplasty. 2017 Oct;32(10):3108-3113
pubmed: 28602532
J Arthroplasty. 2013 Aug;28(7):1167-72
pubmed: 23114191
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007 Apr;89(4):780-5
pubmed: 17403800
Bone Joint J. 2017 Nov;99-B(11):1482-1489
pubmed: 29092987
J Arthroplasty. 2016 Feb;31(2):446-50
pubmed: 26432674
Bone Joint J. 2016 Jan;98-B(1 Suppl A):50-3
pubmed: 26733641
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005 Aug;87(8):1746-51
pubmed: 16085614
Bone Joint J. 2017 Feb;99-B(2):199-203
pubmed: 28148661
Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2018 Oct;28(7):1327-1334
pubmed: 29696415
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2006 Oct;14(11):620-8
pubmed: 17030595