Skip to main content

Choice of the Implant Depending on the Type of Defect

  • 78 Accesses

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.

Keywords

  • Revision stem
  • Bone defect
  • Hip revision arthroplasty

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-84821-7_10
  • Chapter length: 11 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-030-84821-7
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Hardcover Book
USD   199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Fig. 10.1
Fig. 10.2
Fig. 10.3
Fig. 10.4
Fig. 10.5
Fig. 10.6
Fig. 10.7
Fig. 10.8

References

  1. 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  2. Paprosky WG, Aribindi R. Hip replacement: treatment of femoral bone loss using distal bypass fixation. Instr Course Lect. 2000;49:119–30.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Wirtz DC, Heller KD, Holzwarth U, et al. A modular femoral implant for uncemented stem revision in THR. Int Orthop. 2000;24:134–8.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  4. 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  5. 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  6. 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.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  8. 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  9. 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.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  10. 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  11. 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  12. 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  13. 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  14. 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  15. 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  16. 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  17. 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  18. 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  19. Malkani AL, Paiso JM, Sim FH. Proximal femoral replacement with megaprosthesis. Instr Course Lect. 2000;49:141–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  21. Tomford WW. Transmission of disease through transplantation of musculoskeletal allografts. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1995;77-A:1742–54.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  22. 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.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bernd Fink .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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)