Proximal femoral replacement in non-oncologic patients undergoing revision total hip arthroplasty
- 70 Downloads
Proximal femoral replacements (PFRs) have been recently utilized in complex revision arthroplasties where proximal femoral bone is compromised. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the clinical outcomes, complications, and survivorship of PFRs as a salvage treatment for severe bone loss after non-oncologic revision total hip arthroplasty.
This is a retrospective review of all patients who underwent femoral revision surgery using a single design PFR between 2004 and 2013 at our institution. Forty patients (41 hips) were included with a mean age of 64 years (29–90). According to Paprosky classification, 15 femurs had type IIIB defect, and 26 had type IV defect. Patients were followed for a mean of five years (2–10). The average length of reconstruction was 150 mm (81–261). A Kaplan–Meier analysis was used to determine the survival of the PFR.
A total of nine patients (9 PFRs, 22%) were re-operated upon. Three re-operations were for infection, two for dislocation, two for aseptic loosening, and two for periprosthetic fracture. The survivorship at five years was 95.1% for revision of the femoral stem for aseptic loosening. We did not find length of the segmental reconstruction or the indication for revision, to be a risk factor for implant failure or re-revision.
Proximal femoral replacements have shown an acceptable survivorship in non-oncologic revision hip arthroplasties for severe proximal femoral bone loss. The frequent use of constrained liners may decrease the risk of dislocation due to the loss of the abductor mechanism encountered in these complex reconstructions.
KeywordsRevision total hip arthroplasty Proximal femoral replacement Megaprosthesis Dislocation Bone loss
This work was performed at the Complex Joint Reconstruction Center, Adult Reconstruction and Joint Replacement Division, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, USA.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article.
- 9.Viste A, Perry KI, Taunton MJ, Hanssen AD, Abdel MP (2017) Proximal femoral replacement in contemporary revision total hip arthroplasty for severe femoral bone loss: a review of outcomes. Bone Joint J 99–B:325–329. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.99B3.BJJ-2016-0822.R1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 10.Grammatopoulos G, Alvand A, Martin H, Whitwell D, Taylor A, Gibbons CLMH (2016) Five-year outcome of proximal femoral endoprosthetic arthroplasty for non-tumour indications. Bone Joint J 98–B:1463–1470. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.98B11.BJJ-2016-0244.R1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 13.Parvizi J, Sim FH (2004) Proximal femoral replacements with megaprostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res 420:169–175. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000122696.06623.30 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Gosheger G, Gebert C, Ahrens H, Streitbuerger A, Winkelmann W, Hardes J (2006) Endoprosthetic reconstruction in 250 patients with sarcoma. Clin Orthop Relat Res 450:164–171. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000223978.36831.39 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 24.Du Z, Tang S, Yang R, Tang X, Ji T, Guo W (2018) Use of an artificial ligament decreases hip dislocation and improves limb function after total femoral prosthetic replacement following femoral tumor resection. J Arthroplast 33:1507–1514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2017.12.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar