Bone stock in revision femoral arthroplasty: a new evaluation
- 497 Downloads
The purpose of this study was to finalize a method allowing a qualitative and numerical evaluation of the bone stock and to confirm its reproducibility, to verify the relationship between the secondary bone stock value and the functional results, and to determine the main factors influencing the value of the bone stock.
A clinical and radiological evaluation was performed in a group of 150 revisions of total hip replacements according to a new method taking into account cortical bone thickness, bone density and bone defects.
Interobserver reproducibility was evaluated at an average of 0.6 and intra-observer reproducibility was considered good at 0.8. Between the initial bone stock and at the last follow-up, no significant difference was noticed. For secondary bone stock considered as “very good or good”, the gain was +38.1 points versus +29.9 points for patients evaluated as “average or poor” (p < 0.0001). Between the initial bone stock assessment and at last follow-up, a significant relation was found in numerical values for the global type of primary fixation and in the presence of osteopenia (p < 0.0001).
Deficient secondary bone stock can result in less favourable functional results. The numerical scores confirm the importance of strategic choices during surgery in order to manage bone stock preservation.
KeywordsRevision hip prosthesis Press-fit stem Secondary bone stock Numerical evaluation Functional results
We extend our thanks to Anne Ingels for the statistical analysis.
Conflicts of interest
FC certifies that he has or may receive payments or benefits from a commercial entity (Zimmer Educational). OR certifies that he has or may receive payments or benefits from a commercial entity (Zimmer Educational). JG certifies that he has or may receive payments or benefits from a commercial entity (Zimmer Educational). FB certifies that he has or may receive payments or benefits from a commercial entity (Amplitude) that may not be perceived as a potential conflict of interest. PLB certifies that he has or may receive payments or benefits from a commercial entity (Zimmer GmbH) that may be perceived as a potential conflict of interest. MG has no potential conflict of interest.
Ethical review committee
Each author certifies that his institution has approved the reporting of these cases and that all investigations were conducted in conformity with ethical principles of research.
- 5.Le Béguec P, Canovas F, Roche O, Goldschild M, Batard J (2014) Uncemented femoral stems for revision surgery. Springer International Publishing, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
- 8.Engh CA, Bobyn JD, Glassman AH (1987) Porous-coated hip replacement: the factors governing bone ingrowth, stress shielding, and clinical results. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 69:45–55Google Scholar
- 17.Vives P, De Lestang M, Pallot R, Cazeneuve JF (1989) Aseptic loosening. Definition-classification. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 75(Suppl I):29–31Google Scholar
- 19.Kowalczewski JB, Rutkowska-Sak L, Marczak D, Slowinsla I, Slowinski R, Sibinski M (2013) Bone graft incorporation after revision hip arthroplasty in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, seventy eight revisions using bone allografts with or without metal reinforcements. Int Orthop 37(4):595–598PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.Halliday BR, English HW, Timperley GA, Gie GA, Ling RSM (2003) Femoral impaction grafting with cement in revision total replacement. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 85:809–817Google Scholar