Skip to main content
Book cover

Femoral Revision Arthroplasty pp 181–207Cite as

Technical Implementation of the Transfemoral Approach

  • 78 Accesses

Abstract

We prefer the transfemoral approach in a modified Wagner technique as an extended approach to femoral revision procedures. This technique is described in detail in this chapter, and the advantages and disadvantages of our technique compared to others are discussed. In our opinion, the transfemoral approach is indicated for the controlled removal of broken endoprosthetic stems, for the presence of significantly thinned bone at risk of fracture, for removal of a stable cement mantle or a partially fixed cementless prosthetic stem with a coarse, rough surface structure, and for revising infected, firmly seated total hip endoprostheses. It has the advantage of enabling adequate bony healing of the flap, avoiding unintentional fractures and perforations, protecting the vasto-gluteal sling and the gluteus medius muscle, saving time in difficult situations, and allowing bone remodeling of the femur induced by callus formation. Possible problems and the management of potential complications are also discussed in this chapter.

Keywords

  • Extended trochanteric osteotomy
  • Transfemoral approach
  • Double osteotomy
  • Transfemoral access

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

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-84821-7_15
  • Chapter length: 27 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)
Learn about institutional subscriptions
Fig. 15.1
Fig. 15.2
Fig. 15.3
Fig. 15.4
Fig. 15.5
Fig. 15.6
Fig. 15.7
Fig. 15.8
Fig. 15.9
Fig. 15.10
Fig. 15.11
Fig. 15.12
Fig. 15.13
Fig. 15.14
Fig. 15.15
Fig. 15.16
Fig. 15.17
Fig. 15.18–15.20
Fig. 15.21
Fig. 15.22
Fig. 15.23
Fig. 15.24
Fig. 15.25
Fig. 15.26
Fig. 15.27
Fig. 15.28
Fig. 15.29
Fig. 15.30
Fig. 15.31
Fig. 15.32
Fig. 15.33
Fig. 15.34

References

  1. Lerch M, van Lewinski G, Windhagen H, Thorey F. Revision of total hip arthroplasty: clinical outcome of extended trochanteric osteotomy and intraoperative femoral fracture. Technol Health Care. 2008;16:293–300.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Wolf JH. Julius Wolff und sein Gesetz der Transformation der Knochen. Orthopäde. 1995;24:378–86.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. MacDonald SJ, Cole C, Guerin J, Rorabeck CH, Bourne RB, McCalden RW. Extended trochanteric osteotomy via the direct lateral approach in revision hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;(417):210–216.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Paprosky WG, Martin EL. Cemented stem failure requires extended trochanteric osteotomy. Orthopedics. 2003;26:28–38.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Fink B, Grossmann A, Schubring S, Schulz MS, Fuerst M. A modified transfemoral approach using modular cementless revision stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;462:105–14.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Fink B. Revision of late periprosthetic infections of total hip endoprostheses: pros and cons of different concepts. Int J Med Sci. 2009;6:287–95.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Firestone TP, Hedley EL. Extended proximal femoral osteotomy for severe acetabular protrusion following total hip arthroplasty: a technical note. J Arthroplasty. 1997;12:344–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Fink B. The transfemoral approach for controlled removal of well-fixed femoral stems in hip revision surgery. J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2020;11:33–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Meek RM, Garbuz DS, Masri BA, Greidanus NV, Duncan CP. Intraoperative fracture of the femur in revision total hip arthroplasty with a diaphyseal fitting stem. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86-A:480–5.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Park YS, Moon YM, Lim SJ. Revision total hip arthroplasty using a fluted and tapered modular distal fixation stem with and without extended trochanteric osteotomy. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22:993–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. McInnis DP, Horne G, Devane PA. Femoral revision with a fluted, tapered, modular stem. Seventy patients followed for a mean of 3.9 years. J Arthroplasty. 2006;21:372–80.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Pretterklieber B, Pablik E, Dorfmeister K, Pretterklieber KL. There are no safe areas for avoiding the perforating arteries along the proximal part of the femur: a word of caution. Clin Anat. 2020;33:507–15.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Wagner H. Revisionsprothese für das Hüftgelenk bei schwerem Knochenverlust. Orthopäde. 1987;16:295–300.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Wagner H. Revisionsprothese für das Hüftgelenk. Orthopäde. 1989;18:438–53.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Wagner H, Wagner M. Femur-Revisionsprothese. Z Orthop. 1993;131:574–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Wagner H, Wagner M. Hüftprothesenwechsel mit der Femur-Revisionsprothese. Erfahrungen von 10 Jahren. Med Orthop Tech. 1997;117:138–48.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Fink B, Grossmann A. Modified transfemoral approach to revision arthroplasty with uncemented modular revision stems. Oper Orthop Traumatol. 2007;19:32–55.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Warren PJ, Thompson P, Flechter MDA. Transfemoral implantation of the Wagner SL stem. The abolition of subsidence and enhancement of osteotomy union rate using Dall-Miles cables. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2002;122:557–60.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Goldstein WM, Gleason TF, Kopplin M, Branson JJ. Prevalence of dislocation after total hip arthroplasty through a posterolateral approach with partial capsulotomy and capsulorrhaphy. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83-A Suppl 2(Pt 1):2–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Pellicci PM, Bostrom M, Poss R. Posterior approach to total hip replacement using enhanced posterior soft tissue repair. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998;(355):224–8.

    Google Scholar 

  21. White RE Jr, Forness TJ, Allman JK, Junick DW. Effect of posterior capsular repair on early dislocation in primary total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;(393):163–7.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Miner TM, Momberger NG, Chong D, Paprosky WL. The extended trochanteric osteotomy in revision hip arthroplasty: a critical review of 166 cases at mean 3-year, 9-month follow-up. J Arthroplasty. 2001;16:188–94.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Wagner M, Knorr-Held F, Hohmann D. Measuring stability of wire cerclage in femoral fractures when performing total hip replacement. In vitro study on a standardized bone model. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1996;115:33–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Schab JH, Camacho J, Kaufman K, Chen Q, Berry DJ, Trousdale RT. Optimal fixation fort he extended trochanteric osteotomy: a pilot study comparing 3 cables ves. 2 cables. J Arthroplasty. 2008;23:534–8.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Zhu U, Ding H, Shao H, Zhou Y, Wang G. An in-vitro biomechanical study of different fixation techniques for the extended trochanteric osteotomy in revision THA. J Orthop Surg Res. 2013;8:7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Wilkes RA, Birch J, Pearse MF, Lee M, Atkins RM. The Wagner technique for revision arthroplasty of the hip: a review of 24 cases. J Orthop Rheumatol. 1994;7:196–8.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Mei XY, Gong YJ, Safir OA, Gross AE, Kuzyk PR. Fixation options following greater trochanter osteotomies and fractures in total hip arthroplasty: a systemic review. J Bone Joint Surg Rev. 2018;6:e4.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Abdel MP, Wyles CC, Viste A, Perry KI, Trousdale RT, Berry DJ. Extended trochanteric osteotomy in revision total hip arthroplasty. Contemporary outcomes of 612 hips. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2021;103:162–73.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Chen WM, McAuley JP, Engh CA Jr, Hopper RH Jr, Engh CA. Extended slide trochanteric osteotomy for revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000;82-A:1215–9.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Della Valle CJ, Berger RA, Rosenberg AG, Jacobs JJ, Sheinkop MB, Paprosky WG. Extended trochanteric osteotomy in complex primary total hip arthroplasty. A brief note. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85-A:2385–90.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Glassman AH. Exposure for revision: total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;(420):39–47.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Huffman GR, Ries MD. Combined vertical and horizontal cable fixation of an extended trochanteric osteotomy site. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85-A:273–7.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Mardones R, Gonzalez C, Cabanela ME, Trousdale RT, Berry DJ. Extended femoral osteotomy for revision of hip arthroplasty: results and complications. J Arthroplasty. 2005;20:79–83.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Younger TI, Bradford MS, Magnus RE, Paprosky WG. Extended proximal femoral osteotomy. A new technique for femoral revision arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 1995;10:329–38.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Peters PC Jr, Head WC, Emerson RH Jr. An extended trochanteric osteotomy for revision total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1993;75-B:158–9.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Morshed S, Huffman R, Ries MD. Extended trochanteric osteotomy for 2-stage revision of infected total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2005;20:294–301.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Lakstein D, Kosashvili Y, Backstein D, Safir O, Gross AE. Modified extended trochanteric osteotomy with preservation of posterior structures. Hip Int. 2010;20:102–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Lakstein D, Kosashvili Y, Backstein D, Safir O, Lee P, Gross AE. The long modified extended sliding trochanteric osteotomy. Int Orthop. 2011;35:13–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Levine BR, Della Valle CJ, Lewis P, et al. Extended trochanteric osteotomy for the treatment of Vancouver B2/B3 periprosthetic fractures of the femur. J Arthroplasty. 2008;23:527–33.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Charity J, Tsiridis E, Gusmao D, Bauze A, Timperley J, Gie G. Extended trochanteric osteotomy followed by cemented impaction allografting in revision hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2013;28:154–60.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Hartwig C-H, Böhm P, Czech U, Reize P, Küsswetter W. The Wagner revision stem in alloarthroplasty of the hip. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1996;115:5–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Grünig R, Morscher E, Ochsner PE. Three- to 7-year results with the uncemented SL femoral revision prosthesis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1997;116:187–97.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Isacson J, Stark A, Wallensten R. The Wagner revision prosthesis consistently restores femoral bone structure. Int Orthop. 2000;24:139–42.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Böhm P, Bischel O. Femoral revision with the Wagner SL revision stem. Evaluation of one hundred and twenty-nine revisions followed for a mean of 4.8 years. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83-A:1023–31.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Böhm P, Bischel O. The uncemented diaphyseal fixation of femoral revision stems in case of large bone defects—analysis of twelve years experience with the Wagner SL revision stem. Z Orthop. 2001;139:229–39.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. De Menezes DFA, Le Béguec P, Sieber HP, Goldschild M. Stem and osteotomy length are critical for success of the transfemoral approach and cementless stem revision. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470:883–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Fink B, Oremek D. The transfemoral approach for removal of well-fixed femoral stems in two-stage septic hip revision. J Arthroplasty. 2016;31:1065–71.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Lim SJ, Moon YW, Park YS. Is extended trochanteric osteotomy safe for use in 2-stage revision of periprosthetic hip infection? J Arthroplasty. 2011;26:1067–71.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Levine BR, Della Valle CJ, Hamming M, Sporer SM, Berger RA, Paprosky WG. Use of the extended trochanteric osteotomy in treating prosthetic hip infection. J Arthroplasty. 2009;24:49–55.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Fink B, Grossmann A, Singer J. Hip revision arthroplasty in periprosthetic fractures of Vancouver type B2 and B3. J Orthop Trauma. 2012;26:206–11.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Paprosky WG, Weeden SH, Bowling JW Jr. Component removal in revision total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;(393):181–193.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Engh CA, Glassman AH, Suthers KE. The case of porous-coated hip implants: the femoral side. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990;(261):63–81.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Beals RK, Tower SS. Periprosthetic fractures of the femur. An analysis of 93 fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996;(327):238–246.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Sledge JB 3rd, Abiri A. An algorithm for the treatment of Vancouver type B2 periprosthetic proximal femoral fractures. J Arthroplasty. 2002;17:887–92.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. O’Shea K, Quinlan JF, Kutty S, et al. The use of uncemented extensively porous-coated femoral components in the management of Vancouver B2 and B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87-B:1617–21.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Ko PS, Lam JJ, Tio MK, et al. Distal fixation with Wagner revision stem in treating Vancouver type B2 periprosthetic femur fractures in geriatric patients. J Arthroplasty. 2003;13:446–52.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Mulay S, Hassan T, Birtwistle S, et al. Management of types B2 and B3 femoral periprosthetic fractures by a tapered, fluted, and distally fixed stem. J Arthroplasty. 2005;20:751–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Drexler M, Dwyer T, Chakravertty R, Backstein D, Gross AE, Safir O. The outcome of modified extended trochanteric osteotomy in revision THA for Vancouver B2/B3 periprosthetic fractures of the femur. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29:1598–604.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Ladurner A, Zurmühle P, Zdravkovic V, Grob K. Modified extended trochanteric osteotomy for the treatment of Vancouver B2/B3 periprosthetic fractures of the femur. J Arthroplasty. 2017;32:2487–95.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Orthopaedic Clinic Markgröningen, Markgröningen, Baden-Württemberg, Germany

    Bernd Fink

  2. Orthopaedic Department, University-Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany

    Bernd Fink

Authors
  1. Bernd Fink
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

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). Technical Implementation of the Transfemoral Approach. In: Femoral Revision Arthroplasty. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84821-7_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84821-7_15

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-84820-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-84821-7

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)