Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Schmerzhafte Hüftendoprothetik

Ein diagnostischer Algorithmus

Painful hip arthroplasty

A diagnostic algorithm

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Der Orthopäde Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Pro Jahr werden in Deutschland ca. 190.000 Hüftendoprothesen implantiert. Durch die Verbesserung der Implantate und die Weiterentwicklung moderner Operationstechniken und -instrumente ist die prozentuale Lockerungsrate deutlich reduziert worden. Die Standzeiten der Implantate konnten in den letzten Jahren weiter erhöht werden, jedoch klagen bis zu 22% der Patienten nach Hüftprothesenimplantation über persistierende Schmerzen. Die Diagnostik bestehender Schmerzen nach endoprothetischer Versorgung des Hüftgelenks und die sich daraus ergebende kausale Therapie fordern aufgrund der Heterogenität der Ursachen eine systematische Vorgehensweise. Die Ätiologie der Schmerzen kann gelenkassoziiert als auch hüftgelenkunabhängig sein. Oft sind die Schmerzursachen multifaktoriell, sodass eine standardisierte Diagnostik anhand eines Algorithmus durchgeführt werden sollte. Die Klärung der Schmerzen beginnt mit der Anamnese, Inspektion, Palpation und wird gefolgt von der klinischen Untersuchung. Es schließen sich Bildgebung und falls erforderlich invasive Verfahren an. Die explorative Revision wird heutzutage in der Literatur als obsolet angesehen. In der vorliegenden Arbeit wird ein Algorithmus vorgestellt, mit dem man die Ursache der Schmerzen zielgerichtet erheben kann.

Abstract

The number of implantations of hip prostheses in Germany is now approximately 190,000 per year. By improving the implants and the development of modern surgical techniques and instruments the revision rate has been significantly reduced. The survival rate of the implants could be further increased in recent years, however, up to 22% of patients complain about persistent pain after hip arthroplasty. The diagnosis of existing pain after total joint replacement of the hip joint to achieve a causal therapy needs a systematic approach because of the heterogeneity of the symptoms and diseases. The etiology of the pain can be joint-associated and also hip joint independent. Often the causes of pain are multifactorial so that a standardized assessment should be conducted using an algorithm. The clarification of pain begins with the history, inspection and palpation followed by a clinical examination. It is then useful to perform radiological imaging followed by invasive procedures if necessary. The exploratory revision is nowadays considered to be obsolete in the literature.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3
Abb. 4

Literatur

  1. Barrack RL (2000) Early failure of modern cemented stems. J Arthroplasty 15:1036–1050

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Bartelt RB, Sierra RJ (2010) Recurrent hematomas within the iliopsoas muscle caused by impingement after total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty, in press

  3. Berbari E, Mabry T, Tsaras G et al (2010) Inflammatory blood laboratory levels as markers of prosthetic joint infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 92:2102–2109

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bozic KJ, Rubash HE (2004) The painful total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 420:18–25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Cuckler JM (2010) Unexplained pain after THR: what should I do? Orthopedics 33:648

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Duffy P, Masri BA, Garbuz D, Duncan CP (2006) Evaluation of patients with pain following total hip replacement. Instr Course Lect 55:223–232

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Gallo J, Kaminek M, Myslivecek M et al (2004) Validity of bone scintigraphy for the diagnosis of periprosthetic complications in hydroxyapatite-coated total hip arthroplasty. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech 71:345–351

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Ghanem E, Antoci V Jr, Pulido L et al (2009) The use of receiver operating characteristics analysis in determining erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein levels in diagnosing periprosthetic infection prior to revision total hip arthroplasty. Int J Infect Dis 13:e444–e449

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Gotz J, Beckmann J, Perlick L et al (2007) Loosening of a total hip arthroplasty due to metastasis. Z Orthop Unfall 145:760–762

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Haenle M, Heitner A, Mittelmeier W et al (2007) Assessment of cup position from plain radiographs: impact of pelvic tilting. Surg Radiol Anat 29:29–35

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Jacquier A, Champsaur P, Vidal V et al (2004) CT evaluation of total HIP prosthesis infection. J Radiol 85:2005–2012

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Jafari SM, Coyle C, Mortazavi SM et al (2010) Revision hip arthroplasty: infection is the most common cause of failure. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468:2046–2051

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Levitsky KA, Hozack WJ, Balderston RA et al (1991) Evaluation of the painful prosthetic joint. Relative value of bone scan, sedimentation rate, and joint aspiration. J Arthroplasty 6:237–244

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Love C, Marwin SE, Tomas MB et al (2004) Diagnosing infection in the failed joint replacement: a comparison of coincidence detection 18F-FDG and 111In-labeled leukocyte/99mTc-sulfur colloid marrow imaging. J Nucl Med 45:1864–1871

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Manaster BJ (1996) From the RSNA refresher courses. Total hip arthroplasty: radiographic evaluation. Radiographics 16:645–660

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Maniar RN, Todd RC, Robinson S, Critchley M (1997) Uptake of 99mTc-MDP after uncemented hip arthroplasty: a quantitative analysis of findings around the femoral component in asymptomatic patients. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 79:123–128

    Google Scholar 

  17. Martini F, Leichtle U, Lebherz C et al (2003) Postsurgical computed tomography of uncemented hip arthroplasty. Rofo 175:1413–1416

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Meermans G, Haddad FS (2010) Is there a role for tissue biopsy in the diagnosis of periprosthetic infection? Clin Orthop Relat Res 468:1410–1417

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Morawietz L, Gehrke T, Schroder JH, Krenn V (2006) Histopathological diagnostics in endoprosthesis loosening. Pathologe 27:439–445

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Muller M, Dewey M, Springer I et al (2010) Relationship between cup position and obturator externus muscle in total hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Surg Res 5:44

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Muller M, Tohtz S, Winkler T et al (2010) MRI findings of gluteus minimus muscle damage in primary total hip arthroplasty and the influence on clinical outcome. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 130:927–935

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Nikolaou V, Bergeron SG, Huk OL et al (2009) Evaluation of persistent pain after hip resurfacing. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis 67:168–172

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Nunley RM, Wilson JM, Gilula L et al (2010) Iliopsoas bursa injections can be beneficial for pain after total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468:519–526

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Sanzen L, Carlsson AS (1989) The diagnostic value of C-reactive protein in infected total hip arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 71:638–641

    Google Scholar 

  25. Sanzen L, Sundberg M (1997) Periprosthetic low-grade hip infections. Erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein in 23 cases. Acta Orthop Scand 68:461–465

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Schinsky MF, la Valle CJ, Sporer SM, Paprosky WG (2008) Perioperative testing for joint infection in patients undergoing revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 90:1869–1875

    Google Scholar 

  27. Springer BD, Fehring TK, Griffin WL et al (2009) Why revision total hip arthroplasty fails. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467:166–173

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Thomas P, Schuh A, Ring J, Thomsen M (2008) Orthopedic surgical implants and allergies: joint statement by the Implant Allergy Working Group (AK 20) of the DGOOC (German Association of Orthopedics and Orthopedic Surgery), DKG (German Contact Dermatitis Research Group) and DGAKI (German Society for Allergology and Clinical Immunology). Orthopade 37:75–88

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Willert HG, Bertram H, Buchhorn GH (1990) Osteolysis in alloarthroplasty of the hip. The role of bone cement fragmentation. Clin Orthop Relat Res 258:108–121

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Interessenkonflikt

Der korrespondierende Autor gibt an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Hoberg.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hoberg, M., Holzapfel, B. & Rudert, M. Schmerzhafte Hüftendoprothetik. Orthopäde 40, 474–480 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00132-011-1756-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00132-011-1756-z

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Navigation