Survivorship and clinical outcomes of proximal femoral replacement in non-neoplastic primary and revision total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review.
Bone defect
Femoral bone loss
Femoral reconstruction
Femoral revision
Proximal femoral arthroplasty
Proximal femoral replacement
Revision hip arthroplasty
Total hip arthroplasty
Journal
BMC musculoskeletal disorders
ISSN: 1471-2474
Titre abrégé: BMC Musculoskelet Disord
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968565
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 Nov 2021
08 Nov 2021
Historique:
received:
12
09
2021
accepted:
14
09
2021
entrez:
9
11
2021
pubmed:
10
11
2021
medline:
11
11
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Several studies have evaluated the survivorship and clinical outcomes of proximal femoral replacement (PFR) in complex primary and revision total hip arthroplasty with severe proximal femoral bone loss; however, there remains no consensus on the overall performance of this implant. We therefore performed a systematic review of the literature in order to examine survivorship and complication rates of PFR usage. A systematic review of the literature according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines was performed. A comprehensive search of PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was conducted for English articles using various combinations of keywords. In all, 18 articles met the inclusion criteria. A total of 578 PFR were implanted. The all-cause reoperation-free survivorship was 76.6%. The overall complication rate was 27.2%. Dislocation was the most common complication observed and the most frequent reason for reoperation with an incidence of 12.8 and 7.6%, respectively. Infection after PFR had an incidence of 7.6% and a reoperation rate of 6.4%. The reoperation rate for aseptic loosening of the implant was 5.9%. Overall, patients had improved outcomes as documented by postoperative hip scores. PFR usage have a relatively high complication rate, however, it remains an efficacious treatment option in elderly patients with osteoporotic bone affected by severe proximal femoral bone loss. Modular designs have shown reduced dislocations rate and higher survivorship free from dislocation. However, PFR should only be used as salvage procedure when no other reconstruction options are available.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Several studies have evaluated the survivorship and clinical outcomes of proximal femoral replacement (PFR) in complex primary and revision total hip arthroplasty with severe proximal femoral bone loss; however, there remains no consensus on the overall performance of this implant. We therefore performed a systematic review of the literature in order to examine survivorship and complication rates of PFR usage.
METHODS
METHODS
A systematic review of the literature according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines was performed. A comprehensive search of PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was conducted for English articles using various combinations of keywords.
RESULTS
RESULTS
In all, 18 articles met the inclusion criteria. A total of 578 PFR were implanted. The all-cause reoperation-free survivorship was 76.6%. The overall complication rate was 27.2%. Dislocation was the most common complication observed and the most frequent reason for reoperation with an incidence of 12.8 and 7.6%, respectively. Infection after PFR had an incidence of 7.6% and a reoperation rate of 6.4%. The reoperation rate for aseptic loosening of the implant was 5.9%. Overall, patients had improved outcomes as documented by postoperative hip scores.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
PFR usage have a relatively high complication rate, however, it remains an efficacious treatment option in elderly patients with osteoporotic bone affected by severe proximal femoral bone loss. Modular designs have shown reduced dislocations rate and higher survivorship free from dislocation. However, PFR should only be used as salvage procedure when no other reconstruction options are available.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34749680
doi: 10.1186/s12891-021-04711-w
pii: 10.1186/s12891-021-04711-w
pmc: PMC8576938
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
933Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2014 May;24(4):553-7
pubmed: 23689913
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004 Mar;(420):169-75
pubmed: 15057093
J Orthop Sci. 2012 Sep;17(5):595-604
pubmed: 22806173
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006 Sep;450:46-51
pubmed: 16906093
Bone Joint J. 2016 Nov;98-B(11):1463-1470
pubmed: 27803221
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007 May;89(5):1036-43
pubmed: 17473141
Int J Surg. 2008 Apr;6(2):140-6
pubmed: 18337199
J Surg Oncol. 2010 Apr 1;101(5):389-95
pubmed: 20119985
Int Orthop. 2010 Dec;34(8):1261-5
pubmed: 20379815
J Arthroplasty. 2020 Feb;35(2):520-527
pubmed: 31563398
J Arthroplasty. 2014 Feb;29(2):422-7
pubmed: 23856062
Injury. 2012 Jul;43(7):1166-9
pubmed: 22542165
Ochsner J. 2016 Summer;16(2):185-90
pubmed: 27303232
Biomed Res Int. 2016;2016:9079041
pubmed: 27642605
Chang Gung Med J. 2007 Jan-Feb;30(1):73-80
pubmed: 17477032
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006 Sep;450:164-71
pubmed: 16691142
J Arthroplasty. 2018 May;33(5):1331-1336
pubmed: 29525341
Injury. 2016 Oct;47 Suppl 4:S22-S28
pubmed: 27568843
J Arthroplasty. 2019 Nov;34(11):2793-2798
pubmed: 31402075
Orthop Rev (Pavia). 2020 Jun 25;12(Suppl 1):8655
pubmed: 32913591
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2009 Nov;95(7):491-7
pubmed: 19833568
Open Med. 2009;3(3):e123-30
pubmed: 21603045
Biomed Res Int. 2016;2016:2606521
pubmed: 28050552
Bone Joint J. 2017 Mar;99-B(3):325-329
pubmed: 28249971
J Arthroplasty. 2019 Oct;34(10):2511-2518
pubmed: 31213338
Hip Int. 2022 Mar;32(2):185-196
pubmed: 33147103
Bone Joint J. 2017 Jan;99-B(ASuppl1):18-24
pubmed: 28042114
J Arthroplasty. 2014 Nov;29(11):2117-21
pubmed: 25115232
Bone Joint J. 2017 Jan;99-B(1):29-36
pubmed: 28053254
Orthop Rev (Pavia). 2020 Jun 25;12(Suppl 1):8656
pubmed: 32913592
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011 Feb;469(2):470-5
pubmed: 20824405
Acta Orthop Belg. 2010 Aug;76(4):493-502
pubmed: 20973356
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005 Dec;87(12):2693-2701
pubmed: 16322619
Injury. 2020 Aug;51 Suppl 3:S17-S22
pubmed: 31526601
Bone Joint J. 2019 Jan;101-B(1_Supple_A):41-45
pubmed: 30648492
J Arthroplasty. 2018 May;33(5):1507-1514
pubmed: 29366726
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003 Nov;85(11):2156-62
pubmed: 14630846
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1995 May;77(3):351-6
pubmed: 7744913
Int Orthop. 2019 Oct;43(10):2227-2233
pubmed: 30415464
J Biol Regul Homeost Agents. ;31(4 suppl 1):37-42
pubmed: 29181955
Indian J Orthop. 2014 May;48(3):289-95
pubmed: 24932036
Knee Surg Relat Res. 2020 Apr 9;32(1):18
pubmed: 32660578
Arthroplast Today. 2017 Feb 05;3(3):197-202
pubmed: 28913407
J Arthroplasty. 2021 Aug;36(8):3028-3041
pubmed: 34030877
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2019 Feb 8;20(1):58
pubmed: 30736777
J Arthroplasty. 2011 Dec;26(8):1170-5
pubmed: 21676585
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2014 Sep;69 Suppl 1:i5-10
pubmed: 25135091
Acta Orthop Scand. 1996 Feb;67(1):37-42
pubmed: 8615100
Int Orthop. 2012 Apr;36(4):731-4
pubmed: 21826408
J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2018 Jan-Mar;9(1):63-80
pubmed: 29628687
Orthop Rev (Pavia). 2020 Jun 26;12(Suppl 1):8689
pubmed: 32913616