Abstract
The aim in femoral revision procedures is to achieve a defect-oriented implant selection. Revision stems do not have to be implanted for every revision. The advantages and disadvantages of the various implant and fixation concepts for the different types of implantation are described on the basis of the most common defect classification according to Paprosky.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Paprosky WG, Greidanus NV, Antoniou J. Minimum 10-year-results of extensively porous-coated stems in revision hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop. 1999;369:230–42.
Paprosky WG, Aribindi R. Hip replacement: treatment of femoral bone loss using distal bypass fixation. Instr Course Lect. 2000;49:119–30.
Wirtz DC, Heller KD, Holzwarth U, et al. A modular femoral implant for uncemented stem revision in THR. Int Orthop. 2000;24:134–8.
Cavagnaro L, Formica M, Basso M, Zanirato A, Divano S, Felli L. Femoral revision with primary cementless stems: a systematic review of the literature. Musculoskelet Surg. 2018;102:1–9.
Iorio R, Healy WL, Presutti AH. A prospective outcomes analysis of femoral component fixation in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2008;23:662–9.
Artiaco S, Fusini F, Colzani G, Aprato A, Zoccola K, Masse A. Long-term results of Zweymüller SLL femoral stem in revision hip arthroplasty for stage II and stage IIIA femoral bone defect: a 9–15-year follow-up study. Musculoskelet Surg. 2020;104(3):273–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12306-019-00617-y.
Li H, Chen F, Wang Z, Chen Q. Comparison of clinical efficacy between modular cementless stem prostheses and coated cementless long-stem prostheses on bone defect in hip revision arthroplasty. Med Sci Monit. 2016;22:670–7.
Ding ZH, Ling TX, Yuan MC, Qin YZ, Mou P, Wang HY, Zhou ZK. Minimum 8-year follow-up of revision THA with severe femoral bone defects using extensively porous-coated stems and cortical strut grafts. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020;21:218.
Maurer SG, Baitner AC, Di Cesare PE. Reconstruction of the failed femoral component and proximal femoral bone loss in revision hip surgery. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2000;8:354–63.
Weeden SH, Paprosky WG. Minimal 11-year follow-up of extensively porous-coated stems in femoral revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2002;17 Suppl:134–7.
Fink B, Grossmann A, Schubring S, Schulz MS, Fuerst M. Short-term results of hip revisions with a curved cementless modular stem in association with the surgical approach. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2009;129:65–73.
Tangsataporn S, Safir OA, Vincent AD, Abdelbary H, Gross AE, Kuzyk PRT. Risk factors for subsidence of a modular tapered femoral stem used for revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2015;30:1030–134.
Fink B, Grossmann A, Fuerst M. Distal interlocking screws with a modular revision stem for revision total hip arthroplasty in severe bone defects. J Arthroplasty. 2010;25:759–65.
van Houwelingen AP, Duncan CP, Masri BA, Greidanus NV, Garbuz DS. High survival of modular tapered stems for proximal femoral bone defects at 5 to 10 years follow-up. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471:454–62.
Dzaja I, Lyons MC, McCalden RW, Naudie DDD, Howard JL. Revision hip arthroplasty using a modular revision system in cases of severe bone loss. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29:1594–7.
Desai RR, Malkani AI, Hitt KD, et al. Revision total hip arthroplasty using a modular femoral implant in Paprosky III and IV femoral bone loss. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27:1492–1498.e1.
Pierson JL, Small SR, Rodriguez JA, et al. The effect of taper angle and spline geometry on the initial stability of tapered, splined modular titanium stems. J Arthroplasty. 2015;30:1254–9.
Fink B, Grossmann A, Schulz MS. Bone regeneration in the proximal femur following implantation of modular revision stems with distal fixation. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2011;131:465–70.
Malkani AL, Paiso JM, Sim FH. Proximal femoral replacement with megaprosthesis. Instr Course Lect. 2000;49:141–6.
Raousli MR, Porat MD, Hozack WJ, Parvizi J. Proximal femoral replacement and allograft prosthesis composite in the treatment of periprosthetic fractures with significant proximal bone loss. Orthop Surg. 2012;4:203–10.
Tomford WW. Transmission of disease through transplantation of musculoskeletal allografts. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1995;77-A:1742–54.
Viste A, Perry KL, Taunton MJ, Hanssen AD, Abdel MP. Proximal femoral replacement in contemporary revision total hip arthroplasty for severe femoral bone loss.: a review of outcomes. Bone Joint J. 2017;99-B:325–9.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Fink, B. (2022). Choice of the Implant Depending on the Type of Defect. In: Femoral Revision Arthroplasty. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84821-7_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84821-7_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-84820-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-84821-7
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)