Proximal Femoral Reconstructions with Bone Impaction Grafting and Metal Mesh
- 220 Downloads
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.
We thank E. Santini Araujo, MD, Professor of Orthopaedic Pathology, and G. Santini Araujo, MD, for their collaboration on the histologic evaluation.
- 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.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.Fawcett K, Barr AR. Tissue Banking (American Association of Blood Banks). Basel, Switzerland: Karger; 1987:97–107.Google Scholar
- 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
- 29.Mowe JC, ed. Standards for Tissue Banking. Arlington, VA: American Association of Tissue Banks; 1988.Google Scholar
- 31.Muscolo D, Ayerza M. Allografts. In: Callaghan JJ, Rubash HE, eds. The Adult Hip. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven; 1998:297–312.Google Scholar
- 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