Advertisement

International Orthopaedics

, Volume 39, Issue 8, pp 1487–1494 | Cite as

Bone stock in revision femoral arthroplasty: a new evaluation

  • François Canovas
  • Julien GirardEmail author
  • Olivier Roche
  • Henri Migaud
  • François Bonnomet
  • Mathias Goldschild
  • Pierre Le Béguec
Original Paper

Abstract

Purpose

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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).

Conclusions

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.

Keywords

Revision hip prosthesis Press-fit stem Secondary bone stock Numerical evaluation Functional results 

Notes

Acknowledgments

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.

References

  1. 1.
    Engh CA, Massin P, Suthers KE (1990) Roentgenographic assessment of the biologic fixation of porous surfaced femoral component. Clin Orthop Relat Res 257:107–128PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mertl P, Philippot R, Rosset P, Migaud H, Tabutin J, Van de Velde D (2011) Distal locking stem for revision femoral loosening and peri-prosthetic fractures. Int Orthop 35:275–282PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Engh CA, Culpepper WJ 2nd, Kassapidis E (1998) Revision of loose cementless femoral prostheses to larger porous coated components. Clin Orthop Relat Res 347:168–178PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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
  5. 5.
    Le Béguec P, Canovas F, Roche O, Goldschild M, Batard J (2014) Uncemented femoral stems for revision surgery. Springer International Publishing, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wagner H (1987) Revision prosthesis for the hip joint in severe bone loss. Orthopade 16:295–300PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Weber M, Hempfing A, Orler R, Ganz R (2002) Femoral revision using the Wagner stem: results at 2–9 years. Int Orthop 26(1):36–39PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. 9.
    Boisgard S, Moreau PE, Tixier H, Levai JP (2001) Bone reconstruction, leg length discrepancy, and dislocation rate in 52 Wagner revision total hip arthroplasties at 44-months follow up. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 87:147–154PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Iwana D, Nishii T, Miki H, Miki H, Sugano N, Sakai T, Ohzono K, Yoshikawa H (2008) Proximal bone remodelling differed between two types of titanium long femoral components after cementless revision arthroplasty. Int Orthop 32:431–436PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Krishnamurthy AB, MacDonald SJ, Paprosky WG (1997) 5- to 13 year follow-up study on cementless femoral components in revision surgery. J Arthroplasty 12:839–847PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Harris WH (1969) Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fracture. Treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 51:737–754PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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
  14. 14.
    Hofmann A, Wiatt R, France P, Bigler G, Danies AU, Hes WE (1989) Endostable bone loss after total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 245:138–144PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    de Menezes DF, Le Béguec P, Sieber HP, Goldschild M (2012) Stem and osteotomy length are critical for success of the transfemoral approach and cementless stem revision. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470:883–888PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Della Valle CJ, Paprosky WG (2004) The femur in revision total hip arthroplasty evaluation and classification. Clin Orthop Relat Res 420:55–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. 18.
    Bugbee WD, Culpepper WJ II, Engh CA Jr, Engh CA Sr (1997) The long-term clinical consequences of stress shielding in cementless total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 79:1007–1012PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 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
  20. 20.
    Kinkel S, Thomsen MN, Nadorf J, Heisel C, Tanner MC, Jakubowitz E (2014) Strut grafts in revision hip arthroplasty faced with femoral bone defects: an experimental analysis. Int Orthop 38(6):1147–1153PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gore DR (2002) Impaction bone grafting for total hip revision. Int Orthop 26:162–165PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. 23.
    Head WC, Malinin TI, Emerson RH Jr, Mallory TH (2000) Restoration of bone stock in revision surgery of the femur. Int Orthop 24:9–14PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Huiskes R, Weinans H, Van Rietbergen B (1992) The relationship between stress-shielding and bone resorption around total hip stems and the effects of flexible materials. Clin Orthop Relat Res 274:124–134PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Meunier A, Christel P, Sedel L, Witwoet J, Blanquaert D (1990) Influence du module d’élasticité des tiges fémorales de prothèses totales de hanche et de la colorette sur la répartition des déformations du fémur. Int Orthop 14:67–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wirtz DC, Heller KD, Holzwarth U, Sieber C, Pitto RP, Zeiler G, Blencke BA, Forst R (2000) A modular femoral implant for uncemented stem revision in THR. Int Orthop 24:134–138PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© SICOT aisbl 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • François Canovas
    • 1
  • Julien Girard
    • 2
    Email author
  • Olivier Roche
    • 3
  • Henri Migaud
    • 2
  • François Bonnomet
    • 4
  • Mathias Goldschild
    • 5
  • Pierre Le Béguec
    • 6
  1. 1.Hôpital LapeyronieCHU MontpellierMontpellier CedexFrance
  2. 2.Hôpital Roger Salengro, Orthopédie CCHU LilleLille CedexFrance
  3. 3.Centre Chirurgical Emile GalléNancyFrance
  4. 4.Hôpital de HautepierreCHU StrasbourgStrasbourg CedexFrance
  5. 5.Polyclinique SévignéCesson-SévignéFrance
  6. 6.RennesFrance

Personalised recommendations