Extended trochanteric osteotomy: current concepts review
- 1.4k Downloads
Revision total hip arthroplasty is a technically demanding procedure which has gained importance for more than two decades. It was a nightmare for revision surgeons during its initial years of inception before the advent of extended trochanteric osteotomy (ETO). This technique gains access to the femoral medullary canal without compromising the bone stock and aids removal of primary implant and cement mantle without further damaging the parent bone. Like any other surgery, ETO does have certain limitations and complications as reported by various authors. Though it has been routinely used by revision surgeons, thorough knowledge of technical details of ETO is still lacking. So this review article is aimed at addressing the indications, surgical procedure, fixation technique, implant selection and complication of ETO which has been presented over a period of years by various authors.
We searched in the most commonly used portals like MEDLINE (PubMed) and Google scholar using appropriate terminologies for the literature regarding the various preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative clinical scenarios in which revision surgeons utilized ETO.
Results and conclusion
ETO is an important tool in the revision surgeon’s armamentarium and can be used in variety of clinical scenarios and for various intraoperative needs and goals. Awareness about biomechanics of ETO, indications, implants selection, fixation techniques and complications is paramount for good intraoperative and postoperative outcome. ETO by posterior approach continues to be a work horse approach for most revision surgeons all over the world.
keywordsTrochanteric osteotomy Revision hip arthroplasty Hip stability
Sambandam S.N., Gopinath Duraisamy, Chandrasekharan J. and Mounasamy V. contributed equally to this work. Sambandam S.N. and Gopinath Duraisamy designed the research; Sambandam S.N. and Gopinath Duraisamy performed the research; Sambandam S.N., Gopinath Duraisamy, Chandrasekharan J. and Mounasamy V. analyzed the data; and Sambandam S.N. and Gopinath Duraisamy Chandrasekharan J. wrote the paper.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
Each author certifies that no benefits in any form have been received or will be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this study.
- 10.Ritter MA, Gioe TJ, and Stringer EA (1981) Functional significance of nonunion of the greater trochanter. Clin Orthop 177–182. PMID:641087Google Scholar
- 21.Hanssen AD, Rand JA (1999) Evaluation and treatment of infection at the site of a total hip or knee arthroplasty. Instr Course Lect 111. PMID:10098033Google Scholar
- 26.Lindahl H, Malchau H, Herberts P, Garellick G (2005) Periprosthetic femoral fractures classification and demographics of 1049 periprosthetic femoral fractures from the Swedish National Hip Arthroplasty Register. J Arthroplasty 20(7):857–865. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2005.02.001 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 44.Harris WH, White RE, Jr., Mitchell S, Barber F (1981) Removal of broken stems of total joint components by a new method: drilling, undercutting, and extracting without damage to bone. Hip 37–45. PMID:7333893Google Scholar
- 51.Altenburg AJ, Callaghan JJ, Yehyawi TM, Pedersen DR, Liu SS, Leinen JA, Dahl KA, Goetz DD, Brown TD, Johnston RC (2009) Cemented total hip replacement cable debris and acetabular construct durability. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91(7):1664–1670. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.G.00428 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 53.Silverton CD, Jacobs JJ, Rosenberg AG, Kull L, Conley A, Galante JO (1996) Complications of a cable grip system. J Arthroplasty.;11(4):400-404. PMID: 8792246 Doi: 10.1016/S0883-5403(96)80029-5
- 60.Adachi JD, Loannidis G, Berger C, Joseph L, Papaioannou A, Pickard L, Papadimitropoulos EA, Hopman W, Poliquin S, Prior JC, Hanley DA, Olszynski WP, Anastassiades T, Brown JP, Murray T, Jackson SA, Tenenhouse A (2001) Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study Research G. The influence of osteoporotic fractures on health-related quality of life in community-dwelling men and women across Canada. Osteoporos Int 12(11):903–908. doi: 10.1007/s001980170017 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar