Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

, Volume 467, Issue 9, pp 2325–2334 | Cite as

Proximal Femoral Reconstructions with Bone Impaction Grafting and Metal Mesh

  • Martín A. Buttaro
  • Fernando Comba
  • Francisco Piccaluga
Symposium: Papers Presented at the Annual Closed Meeting of the International Hip Society

Abstract

Extensive circumferential proximal cortical bone loss is considered by some a contraindication for impaction bone grafting in the femur. We asked whether reconstruction with a circumferential metal mesh, impacted bone allografts, and a cemented stem would lead to acceptable survival in these patients. We retrospectively reviewed 14 patients (15 hips) with severe proximal femoral bone defects (average, 12 cm long; 14 type IV and one type IIIB using the classification of Della Valle and Paprosky) reconstructed with this method. The minimum followup was 20 months (average, 43.2 months; range, 20–72 months). Preoperative Merle D’Aubigné and Postel score averaged 4.8 points. With revision of the stem as the end point, the survivorship of the implant was 100% at one year and 86.6% at 72 months. The mean functional score at last followup was 14.4 points. We observed two fractures of the metal mesh at 31 and 48 months in cases reconstructed with a stem that did not bypass the mesh. Dislocation (3 cases) and acute deep infection (3 cases) were the most frequent complications. Patients with complete absence of the proximal femur may be candidates for biological proximal femoral reconstructions using this salvage procedure. Bone impaction grafting must be a routine technique if this method is selected.

Level of Evidence: Level IV, therapeutic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank E. Santini Araujo, MD, Professor of Orthopaedic Pathology, and G. Santini Araujo, MD, for their collaboration on the histologic evaluation.

References

  1. 1.
    Berry DJ. Treatment of Vancouver B3 periprosthetic femur fractures with a fluted tapered stem. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;417:224–231.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blackley HR, Davis AM, Hutchison CR, Gross AE. 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. 2001;83:346–354.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bolder SB, Schreurs BW, Verdonschot N, Veth RP, Buma P. Wire mesh allows more revascularization than a strut in impaction bone grafting: an animal study in goats. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;423:280–286.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Buttaro M, Araujo GS, Araujo ES, Comba F, Piccaluga F. Viability of impacted bone allografts under metal mesh at the calcar in revision surgery of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90:228–231.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Buttaro M, Comba F, Piccaluga F. Vancomycin-supplemented cancellous bone allografts in hip revision surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;461:74–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Buttaro MA, Mayor MB, Van Citters D, Piccaluga F. Fatigue fracture of a proximally modular, distally tapered fluted implant with diaphyseal fixation. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22:780–783.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clarke HD, Berry DJ, Sim FH. Salvage of failed femoral megaprostheses with allograft prosthesis composites. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998;356:222–229.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    D’Aubigne RM, Postel M. Function al results of hip arthroplasty with acrylic prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1954;36:451–475.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Della Valle CJ, Paprosky WG. The femur in revision total hip arthroplasty evaluation and classification. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;420:55–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Duncan CP, Masri BA. Fractures of the femur after hip replacement. Instr Course Lect. 1995;44:293–304.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ek ET, Choong PF. Comparison between triple-tapered and double-tapered cemented femoral stems in total hip arthroplasty: a prospective study comparing the C-Stem versus the Exeter Universal early results after 5 years of clinical experience. J Arthroplasty. 2005;20:94–100.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Engelbrecht E, Heinert K. Klassifikation und Behandlungsrichtlinien von Knochensubsanzverlusten bei Revisionsoperationen am Huftgelenk mittelfrsige Ergebnisse. Primare und Revisionsalloarthroplastik Hrsg-Endo-Klinik. Hamburg, Germany: Springer-Verlag; 1987:189–201.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fawcett K, Barr AR. Tissue Banking (American Association of Blood Banks). Basel, Switzerland: Karger; 1987:97–107.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fetzer GB, Callaghan JJ, Templeton JE, Goetz DD, Sullivan PM, Johnston RC. Impaction allografting with cement for extensive femoral bone loss in revision hip surgery: a 4- to 8-year follow-up study. J Arthroplasty. 2001;16(8 Suppl 1):195–202.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gie GA, Linder L, Ling RS, Simon JP, Slooff TJ, Timperley AJ. Impacted cancellous allografts and cement for revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1993;75:14–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gross AE, Hutchison CR. Proximal femoral allografts for reconstruction of bone stock in revision arthroplasty of the hip. Orthop Clin North Am. 1998;29:313–317.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gruen TA, McNeice GM, Amstutz HC. “Modes of failure” of cemented stem-type femoral components: a radiographic analysis of loosening. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1979;141:17–27.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Guala AJ, Buttaro M, Piccaluga F. Initial stability of circumferential meshes with impacted bone allografts for massive femoral defects. Int Orthop. 2008;32:605–609.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Haentjens P, De Boeck H, Opdecam P. Proximal femoral replacement prosthesis for salvage of failed hip arthroplasty: complications in a 2–11 year follow-up study in 19 elderly patients. Acta Orthop Scand. 1996;67:37–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Halliday BR, English HW, Timperley AJ, Gie GA, Ling RS. Femoral impaction grafting with cement in revision total hip replacement. Evolution of the technique and results. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2003;85:809–817.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Harris WH, McGann WA. Loosening of the femoral component after use of the medullary-plug cementing technique. Follow-up note with a minimum five-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1986;68:1064–1066.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kaplan E, Meier P. Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc. 1958;53:457–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kim YH. Cemented revision hip arthroplasty using strut and impacted cancellous allografts. J Arthroplasty. 2004;19:726–732.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Klein GR, Parvizi J, Rapuri V, Wolf CF, Hozack WJ, Sharkey PF, Purtill JJ. Proximal femoral replacement for the treatment of periprosthetic fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:1777–1781.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Leone WA, Jr., Naughton M, Gratto-Cox G, Luland CM, Kilgore JE, Hill GE. The effect of preoperative planning and impaction grafting surgical technique on intraoperative and postoperative complication rate for femoral revision patients with moderate to severe bone loss mean 4.7-year results. J Arthroplasty. 2008;23:383–394.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Loudon JR, Charnley J. Subsidence of the femoral prosthesis in total hip replacement in relation to the design of the stem. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1980;62:450–453.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Malkani AL, Settecerri JJ, Sim FH, Chao EY, Wallrichs SL. Long-term results of proximal femoral replacement for non-neoplastic disorders. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1995;77:351–356.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Maury AC, Pressman A, Cayen B, Zalzal P, Backstein D, Gross A. Proximal femoral allograft treatment of Vancouver type-B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88:953–958.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mowe JC, ed. Standards for Tissue Banking. Arlington, VA: American Association of Tissue Banks; 1988.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Murphy SB, Rodriguez J. Revision total hip arthroplasty with proximal bone loss. J Arthroplasty. 2004;19(4 Suppl 1):115–119.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Muscolo D, Ayerza M. Allografts. In: Callaghan JJ, Rubash HE, eds. The Adult Hip. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven; 1998:297–312.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Muscolo DL, Ayerza MA, Aponte-Tinao LA. Massive allograft use in orthopedic oncology. Orthop Clin North Am. 2006;37:65–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Nunez LV, Buttaro MA, Morandi A, Pusso R, Piccaluga F. Frozen sections of samples taken intraoperatively for diagnosis of infection in revision hip surgery. Acta Orthop. 2007;78:226–230.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Oakes DA, Cabanela ME. Impaction bone grafting for revision hip arthroplasty: biology and clinical applications. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2006;14:620–628.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Parvizi J, Sim FH. Proximal femoral replacements with megaprostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;420:169–175.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Parvizi J, Tarity TD, Slenker N, Wade F, Trappler R, Hozack WJ, Sim FH. Proximal femoral replacement in patients with non-neoplastic conditions. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:1036–1043.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Piccaluga F, Gonzalez Della Valle A, Encinas Fernandez JC, Pusso R. Revision of the femoral prosthesis with impaction allografting and a Charnley stem. A 2- to 12-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2002;84:544–549.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Salvati EA, Sharrock NE, Westrich G, Potter HG, Valle AG, Sculco TP. The 2007 ABJS Nicolas Andry Award: three decades of clinical, basic, and applied research on thromboembolic disease after THA: rationale and clinical results of a multimodal prophylaxis protocol. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;459:246–254.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Schreurs BW, Arts JJ, Verdonschot N, Buma P, Slooff TJ, Gardeniers JW. Femoral component revision with use of impaction bone-grafting and a cemented polished stem. Surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88(Suppl 1 Pt 2):259–274.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sierra RJ, Charity J, Tsiridis E, Timperley JA, Gie GA. The use of long cemented stems for femoral impaction grafting in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90:1330–1336.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Zehr RJ, Enneking WF, Scarborough MT. Allograft-prosthesis composite versus megaprosthesis in proximal femoral reconstruction. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996;322:207–223.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martín A. Buttaro
    • 1
  • Fernando Comba
    • 1
  • Francisco Piccaluga
    • 1
  1. 1.Hip Surgery UnitInstitute of Orthopaedics “Carlos E. Ottolenghi,” Italian Hospital of Buenos AiresBuenos AiresArgentina

Personalised recommendations