What is the Long-term Survival of Impaction Allografting of the Femur?
- First Online:
- 376 Downloads
Revision hip surgery of the femur for patients with substantial bone loss is challenging. We previously reported 41 patients (44 hips) treated with femoral impaction grafting followed for a minimum of 2 years. The survivorship, using femoral reoperation for symptomatic aseptic loosening as the end point, was 97% at 8 years. However, data on longer term survival are crucial to adequately compare this surgical technique with other types of revision hip arthroplasty procedures.
We therefore asked what the survivorship of impaction bone grafting was at longer followup, if the severity of bone loss was associated with failure, and finally, if longer length stems had improved survival compared with shorter stems.
Between 1993 and 2002, 78 femoral revisions were performed in 71 patients using impaction grafting. The average age of the patients was 67 years (range, 33–84 years). Sixty-nine of the 71 patients were available for followup evaluation. We obtained Harris hip scores preoperatively and postoperatively. Radiographs were measured for radiolucent lines. Patients were followed a minimum of 2 years (average, 10.6 years; range, 2–19 years).
Survival of the femoral component without revision for any cause was 93% (confidence interval [CI], 83%–97%) and for aseptic loosening was 98% (CI, 87%–100%) at 19 years. Neither severity of bone loss nor the length of the stem predicted failure.
Impaction bone grafting has a high survival of 93% at the 19-year followup for patients with severe bone loss of their femur.
Level of Evidence
Level IV, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
- 2.Engelbrecht E, Heinert K. Klassifikation und behandlungsrichtlinien von knochensubstanzverlusten bei revisionsoperationen am hüftgelenk. In: Arcq M, ed. Primär- Und Revisions-Alloarthroplastik Hüft- Und Kniegelenk. 1987:189–201.Google Scholar
- 3.Engh CA, Griffin WL, Marx CL. Cementless acetabular components. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1990;1:53–59.Google Scholar
- 4.Garcia-Cimbrelo E, Garcia-Rey E, Cruz-Pardos A. The extent of the bone defect affects the outcome of femoral reconstruction in revision surgery with impacted bone grafting: a five- to 17-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011;11:1457–1464.Google Scholar
- 5.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;1:14–21.Google Scholar
- 7.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;6:809–817.Google Scholar
- 8.Harris WH. Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1969;4:737–755.Google Scholar
- 16.Ornstein E, Linder L, Ranstam J, Lewold S, Eisler T, Torper M. Femoral impaction bone grafting with the Exeter stem—the Swedish experience: survivorship analysis of 1305 revisions performed between 1989 and 2002. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009;4:441–446.Google Scholar
- 21.Schreurs BW, Luttjeboer J, Thien TM, de Waal Malefijt MC, Buma P, Veth RP, Slooff TJ. Acetabular revision with impacted morselized cancellous bone graft and a cemented cup in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. A concise follow-up, at eight to nineteen years, of a previous report. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;3:646–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Ten Have BL, Brouwer RW, van Biezen FC, Verhaar JA. Femoral revision surgery with impaction bone grafting: 31 hips followed prospectively for ten to 15 years. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012;5:615–618.Google Scholar
- 27.Wraighte PJ, Howard PW. Femoral impaction bone allografting with an Exeter cemented collarless, polished, tapered stem in revision hip replacement: a mean follow-up of 10.5 years. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;8:1000–1004.Google Scholar