Advertisement

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

, Volume 469, Issue 2, pp 470–475 | Cite as

Quality of Life Following Proximal Femoral Replacement Using a Modular System in Revision THA

  • Muhyeddine M. Al-Taki
  • Bassam A. Masri
  • Clive P. Duncan
  • Donald S. GarbuzEmail author
Symposium: Papers Presented at the Hip Society Meetings 2010

Abstract

Background

Proximal femoral replacement using a segmental modular system is one option for revision THA in the presence of severe bone loss or periprosthetic fracture. While many papers report function in these patients, they do not describe the quality of life.

Questions/purposes

We evaluated the quality of life in patients undergoing proximal femoral replacement using a segmental modular system for severe bone loss.

Patients and Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 63 patients undergoing complex revision THA using a modular replacement system for nonneoplastic conditions between April 1996 and June 2006. Average age was 73 years (range, 23–94 years). Twenty-one patients were lost to followup and six patients died before 2-year minimum followup. The remaining 36 patients were followed for an average of 3.2 years (range, 2–10 years). Study patients were matched by age-decade to a control group of patients undergoing conventional revision THA. At baseline, both groups were comparable with respect to age, comorbidities, and quality-of-life scores.

Results

At last followup, the modular system group showed improvement in WOMAC function, WOMAC pain, Oxford score, and the SF-12 mental component. Compared to the control group, the modular system group scored lower on WOMAC function and Oxford scores, but there were no differences in any other scores.

Conclusions

In patients with severely compromised bone stock, a segmental modular replacement system can improve the quality of life. Special attention should be given to the stability of the hip intraoperatively and a constrained acetabular liner should be used when the risk of postoperative dislocation is high.

Level of Evidence

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

Keywords

Acetabular Component Periprosthetic Fracture Severe Bone Loss Acetabular Liner WOMAC Function 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgment

We thank Daphné Savoy for her assistance in the preparation of this manuscript.

References

  1. 1.
    Alberton GM, High WA, Morrey BF. Dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty: an analysis of risk factors and treatment options. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84:1788–1792.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW. Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol. 1988;15:1833–1840.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berry DJ. Treatment of Vancouver B3 periprosthetic femur fractures with a fluted tapered stem. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;417:224–231.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chandler H, Clark J, Murphy S, McCarthy J, Penenberg B, Danylchuk K, Roehr B. Reconstruction of major segmental loss of the proximal femur in revision total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994;298:67–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Charnley J. The long-term results of low-friction arthroplasty of the hip performed as a primary intervention. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1972;54:61–76.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    DeLee JG, Charnley J. Radiological demarcation of cemented sockets in total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1976;121:20–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Duncan CP, Masri BA. Fractures of the femur after hip replacement. Instr Course Lect. 1995;44:293–304.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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
  9. 9.
    Gross AE. Allograft prosthetic composite. In: Barrack RL, Rosenberg AG, eds. The Hip. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2006:385–396.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    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
  12. 12.
    Haddad FS, Garbuz DS, Masri BA, Duncan CP. Structural proximal femoral allografts for failed total hip replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2000;82:830–836.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Haddad FS, Masri BA, Garbuz DS, Duncan CP. Femoral bone loss in total hip arthroplasty: classification and preoperative planning. Instr Course Lect. 2000;49:83–96.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Johnsson R, Carlsson A, Kisch K, Moritz U, Zetterstrom R, Persson BM. Function following mega total hip arthroplasty compared with conventional total hip arthroplasty and healthy matched controls. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1985;192:159–167.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mahomed N, Sledge C, Daltroy L, Fossel A, Katz J. Self-administered satisfaction scale for joint replacement arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1998;80(Suppl 1):9.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Malkani A, Seti’ecerri J, Sim F, Chao E, Wallrichs S. Long-term results of proximal femoral replacement for non-neoplastic disorders. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1995;77:351–356.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Morrey BF. Results of reoperation for hip dislocation: the big picture. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;429:94–101.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Murray DW, Fitzpatrick R, Rogers K, Pandit H, Beard DJ, Carr AJ, Dawson J. The use of the Oxford hip and knee scores. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89:1010–1014.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Paprosky WG, Greidanus NV, Antoniou J. Minimum 10-year-results of extensively porous-coated stems in revision hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999;369:230–242.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Paprosky WG, Perona PG, Lawrence JM. Acetabular defect classification and surgical reconstruction in revision arthroplasty: a 6-year follow-up evaluation. J Arthroplasty. 1994;9:33–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Parvizi J, Sim FH. Proximal femoral replacements with megaprostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;420:169–175.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sim FH, Chao EY. Hip salvage by proximal femoral replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1981;63:1228–1239.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Springer BD, Berry DJ, Lewallen DG. Treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures following total hip arthroplasty with femoral component revision. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85:2156–2162.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ware JE Jr, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-item short-form health survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996;34:220–233.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zahiri CA, Schmalzried TP, Szuszczewcz ES, Amstutz HC. Assessing activity in joint replacement patients. J Arthroplasty. 1998;13:890–895.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zaki SH, Sadiq S, Purbach B, Wroblewski BM. Periprosthetic femoral fractures treated with a modular distally cemented stem. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2007;15:163–166.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zehr RJ, Enneking WF, Scarborough MT. Allograft-prosthesis composite versus megaprosthesis in proximal femoral reconstruction. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996;322:207–223.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Muhyeddine M. Al-Taki
    • 1
  • Bassam A. Masri
    • 1
  • Clive P. Duncan
    • 1
  • Donald S. Garbuz
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Division of Lower Limb Reconstruction and Oncology, Department of OrthopaedicsUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations