Advertisement

International Orthopaedics

, Volume 36, Issue 5, pp 961–965 | Cite as

Revision total hip arthroplasty using a cementless tapered revision stem in patients with a mean age of 82 years

  • Daniel NeumannEmail author
  • Lothar Dueckelmann
  • Christoph Thaler
  • Ulrich Dorn
Original Paper

Abstract

Purpose

A tapered straight cementless stem was used for revision in a group of old and very old patients. We wanted to know whether the use of this implant could achieve satisfactory results despite age and osteoporosis.

Methods

We retrospectively analysed data of 77 elderly patients (77 hips) who underwent revision in cemented and uncemented primary total hip arthroplasties (THA). The patients had a mean age of 82.2 years (range, 75–92 years) at revision surgery. They were monitored for a mean follow up of 7.1 years (range, 5.0–10.2 years). During the minimum follow-up period 11 patients died of unrelated causes, leaving 66 patients (66 hips) for evaluation.

Results

During the period of study three stems failed due to aseptic loosening, three hips dislocated and were successfully treated by closed reduction and bracing. No infection, osteolysis or significant stress shielding around the stems was observed. The survivorship at an average of 7.1-year follow-up was 95.5%.

Conclusions

These results indicate that this stem is an excellent alternative in revision THA in patients of 75 years or older.

Keywords

Aseptic Loosening Femoral Revision Cementless Femoral Component Octogenarian Group Fissure Line 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Korovessis P, Repantis T (2009) High medium-term survival of Zweymüller slr-plus stem used in femoral revision. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467(8):2032–2040PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boehm P, Bischel O (2004) The use of tapered stems for femoral revision surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res 420:148–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chang JD, Kim TY, Rao MB, Lee SS, Kim IS (2011) Revision total hip arthroplasty using a tapered, press-fit cementless revision stem in elderly patients. J Arthroplasty 26(7):1045–1049Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zweymüller K, Steindl M, Melmer T (2005) Anterior windowing of the femur diaphysis for cement removal in revision surgery. Clin Orthop 441:227–236PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zweymüller K (2007) Good results with an uncoated grit-blasted tapered straight stem at ten years. Interact Surg 2:197–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Della Valle CJ, Paprosky WG (2004) The femur in revision total hip arthroplasty evaluation and classification. Clin Orthop Relat Res 420:55–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    D’Aubigne RM, Postel M (1954) Functional results of hip arthroplasty with acrylic prosthesis. J Bone Jt Surg Am 36:451–475Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    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 Jt Surg Am 51:737–755Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gruen TA, McNeice GM, Amstutz HC (1979) Modes of failure of cemented stem-type femoral components: a radiographic analysis of loosening. Clin Orthop Relat Res 141:17–27PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Engh CA, Bobyn JD (1988) The influence of stem size and extent of porous coating on femoral bone resorption after primary cementless hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 231:7–28PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gundolf F (2007) Compression cerclage. In: 25 years of biologic fixation, Ed.: Friedrich N, Santore R. Elsevier, Urban+Fischer, MunichGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dohmae Y, Bechtold JE, Sherman RE et al (1988) Reduction in cement-bone interface shear strength between primary and revision arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 236:214–220PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Holt G, Hook S, Hubble M (2011) Revision total hip arthroplasty: the femoral side using cemented implants. Int Orthop 35(2):267–273PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Paprosky WG, Greidanus NV, Antoniou J (1999) Minimum 10-year-results of extensively porous-coated stems in revision hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 369:230–242PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Christie MJ, DeBoer DK, Tingstad EM et al (2000) Clinical experience with a modular noncemented femoral component in revision total hip arthroplasty: 4- to 7-year results. J Arthroplast 15:840–846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kwong LM, Miller AJ, Lubinus P (2003) A modular distal fixation option for proximal bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty: a 2- to 6-year follow-up study. J Arthroplast 18:94–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Krishnamurthy AB, MacDonald SJ, Paprosky WG (1997) 5- to 13-year follow-up study on cementless femoral components in revision surgery. J Arthroplasty 12:839–844PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Weiss RJ, Beckman MO, Enocson A et al (2011) Minimum 5-year follow-up of a cementless, modular, tapered stem in hip revision arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 1:16–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kolstad K, Adalberth G, Mallmin H et al (1996) The Wagner revision stem for severe osteolysis. 31 hips followed for 1.5–5 years. Acta Orthop Scand 67:541–546PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Weber M, Hempfing A, Orler R et al (2002) Femoral revision using the Wagner stem: results at 2–9 years. Int Orthop 26:36–39PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mertl P, Philippot R, Rosset P, Migaud H, Tabutin J, Van de Velde D (2011) Distal locking stem for revision femoral loosening and periprosthetic fractures. Int Orthop 35(2):275–282PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Parvizi J, Pour AE, Keshavarzi NR, D'Apuzzo M, Sharkey PF, Hozack WJ (2007) Revision total hip arthroplasty in octogenarians. A case-control study. J Bone Jt Surg Am 89(12):2612–2618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Meek RM, Garbuz DS, Masri BA et al (2004) Intraoperative fracture of the femur in revision total hip arthroplasty with a diaphyseal fitting stem. J Bone Jt Surg Am 86A:480–484Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lintner F, Huber M, Böhm G, Attems J, Wais R (1996) Der Schneide-Schleif Effekt als wichtiger Parameter zur ossären Einheilung zementfreier Pfannen (German). In: Zweymüller K (ed) 15 Jahre Zweymüller Hüftprothese. Verlag Hans Huber, BernGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel Neumann
    • 1
    Email author
  • Lothar Dueckelmann
    • 1
  • Christoph Thaler
    • 1
  • Ulrich Dorn
    • 1
  1. 1.Orthopedic University ClinicPMU SalzburgSalzburgAustria

Personalised recommendations