Skip to main content
Log in

The Modular Universal Tumour And Revision System (MUTARS®) in endoprosthetic revision surgery

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this study was to present the clinical and functional results of revision surgery after failed hip endoprostheses using the Modular Universal Tumour And Revision System (MUTARS®). Functional results of the hip endoprostheses were recorded by applying the Harris hip score. The extent of the presurgical radiological bone defect was measured according to the classification system of the German orthopaedic association (DGOOC). Indications for revision surgery on 45 patients (21 female, 24 male) were aseptic loosening (19 patients), infection (16 patients), or periprosthetic fracture (Vancouver classification B2, B3 and C, in nine patients). Revision surgery was performed after 8.6 years on average (min. 0.6; max. 14.25 years). Large defects of the proximal femur (80% medial or lateral diaphysis; 20% meta-diaphysis according to DGOOC classification) were adequately reconstructed. The average follow-up was 38.6 months. Complications occurred in eight patients: one luxation, two aseptic loosenings, and five reinfections were diagnosed. The Harris hip score (presurgical 30; postsurgical 78) showed significant improvement after revision surgery. Regarding the extent of the patients’ bone defects, good functional results were achieved. The comparatively low number of luxations and loosenings is due to the high modularity of the prosthesis with arbitrary antetorsion in the hip joint. However, high reinfection rates in mega-implants still constitute a problem and should be the subject of further studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bettin D, Katthagen BD (1997) The German Society of Orthopedics and Traumatology classification of bone defects in total hip endoprostheses revision operations. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 135:281–284

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ulrich SD, Seyler TM, Bennett D, Delanois RE, Saleh KJ, Thongtrangan I, Kuskowski M, Cheng EY, Sharkey PF, Parvizi J, Stiehl JB, Mont MA (2008) Total hip arthroplasties: what are the reasons for revision?. Int Orthop 32:597–604. doi:10.1007/s00264-007-0364-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Wirtz DC, Heller KD, Holzwarth U, Siebert C, Pitto RP, Zeiler G, Blencke BA, Forst R (2000) A modular femoral implant for uncemented stem revision in THR. Int Orthop 24:134–138

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Wirtz DC, Niethard FU (1997) Etiology, diagnosis and therapy of aseptic hip prosthesis loosening—a status assessment. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 135:270–280

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Malchau H, Herberts P, Ahnfelt L (1993) Prognosis of total hip replacement in Sweden. Follow-up of 92,675 operations performed 1978–1990. Acta Orthop Scand 64:497–506

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Engh CA, Glassman AH, Griffin WL, Mayer JG (1988) Results of cementless revision for failed cemented total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop:91–110

  7. Hedley AK, Gruen TA, Ruoff DP (1988) Revision of failed total hip arthroplasties with uncemented porous-coated anatomic components. Clin Orthop 235:75–90

    Google Scholar 

  8. Wagner H, Wagner M (1993) Femur revision prosthesis. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 131:574–577

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gustilo RB, Pasternak HS (1988) Revision total hip arthroplasty with titanium ingrowth prosthesis and bone grafting for failed cemented femoral component loosening. Clin Orthop:111–119

  10. Gosheger G, Hillmann A, Lindner N, Rodl R, Hoffmann C, Burger H, Winkelmann W (2001) Soft tissue reconstruction of megaprostheses using a trevira tube. Clin Orthop 235:264–271

    Google Scholar 

  11. Gosheger G, Winkelmann W (2000) Mutars—a modular tumor and revision system. Experiences at the Munster Tumor Center. Orthopade 29(Suppl 1):S54–S55

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kent M, Rachha R, Sood M (2009) A technique for the fabrication of a reinforced moulded articulating cement spacer in two-stage revision total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop. doi:10.1007/s00264-009-0847-5

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Brady OH, Garbuz DS, Masri BA, Duncan CP (1999) Classification of the hip. Orthop Clin North Am 30:215–220

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Harris WH (1969) Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 51:737–755

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Chandler H, Clark J, Murphy S, McCarthy J, Penenberg B, Danylchuk K, Roehr B (1994) Reconstruction of major segmental loss of the proximal femur in revision total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 298:67–74

    Google Scholar 

  16. Malkani AL, Sim FH, Chao EY (1993) Custom-made segmental femoral replacement prosthesis in revision total hip arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am 24:727–733

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Blackley HR, Davis AM, Hutchison CR, Gross AE (2001) Proximal femoral allografts for reconstruction of bone stock in revision arthroplasty of the hip. A nine to fifteen-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 83-A:346–354

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Baba T, Shitoto K (2009) Revision of total hip arthroplasty using the Kerboull and KT plates. Int Orthop. doi:10.1007/s00264-009-0789-y

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Vastel L, Lemoine CT, Kerboull M, Courpied JP (2007) Structural allograft and cemented long-stem prosthesis for complex revision hip arthroplasty: use of a trochanteric claw plate improves final hip function. Int Orthop 31:851–857. doi:10.1007/s00264-006-0275-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Wraighte PJ, Howard PW (2008) Femoral impaction bone allografting with an Exeter cemented collarless, polished, tapered stem in revision hip replacement: a mean follow-up of 10.5 years. J Bone Joint Surg Br 90:1000–1004

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Frances A, Moro E, Cebrian JL, Marco F, Garcia-Lopez A, Serfaty D, Lopez-Duran L (2007) Reconstruction of bone defects with impacted allograft in femoral stem revision surgery. Int Orthop 31:457–464. doi:10.1007/s00264-006-0211-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Schmale GA, Lachiewicz PF, Kelley SS (2000) Early failure of revision total hip arthroplasty with cemented precoated femoral components: comparison with uncemented components at 2 to 8 years. J Arthroplasty 15:718–729

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Yoo JJ, Kwon YS, Koo KH, Yoon KS, Kim YM, Kim HJ (2009) One-stage cementless revision arthroplasty for infected hip replacements. Int Orthop 33:1195–1201. doi:10.1007/s00264-008-0640-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Ogino D, Kawaji H, Konttinen L, Lehto M, Rantanen P, Malmivaara A, Konttinen L, Salo J (2008) Total hip replacement in patients eighty years of age and older. J Bone Joint Surg Am 90:1884–1890

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Diekerhof CH, Barnaart LF, Rozing PM (2000) Long-term clinical results of cemented revision of primary cemented total hip arthroplasties. Acta Orthop Belg 66:376–381

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Stöckl B, Kulhanek A, Steindl V, Mayr E, Krismer M (2007) Langzeitüberleben der zementierten Langschaftprothese LINK SP II nach Revisionsoperationen. 29 Jahrestagung der Österreichischen Gesellschaft für Orthopädie und Orthopädische Chirurgie, Wien

  27. Tanzer M, Chan S, Brooks CE, Bobyn JD (2001) Primary cementless total hip arthroplasty using a modular femoral component: a minimum 6-year follow-up. J Arthroplasty 16:64–70

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Crawford SA, Siney PD, Wroblewski BM (2000) Revision of failed total hip arthroplasty with a proximal femoral modular cemented stem. J Bone Joint Surg Br 82:684–688

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Kavanagh BF, Ilstrup DM, Fitzgerald RH Jr (1985) Revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 67:517–526

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Cameron HU (2002) The long-term success of modular proximal fixation stems in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 17:138–141

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martin Wessling.

Additional information

Carsten Gebert and Martin Wessling contributed equally to this paper.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gebert, C., Wessling, M., Götze, C. et al. The Modular Universal Tumour And Revision System (MUTARS®) in endoprosthetic revision surgery. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 34, 1261–1265 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-010-1007-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-010-1007-7

Keywords

Navigation