Advertisement

The Corail Revision Family

  • Tim BoardEmail author

Abstract

Revision hip surgery is a complex and challenging task. The frequency of revision surgery is increasing with time and the need for a conservative approach to preserve bone stock and load the femur as physiologically as possible is paramount. The various options for reconstruction of the femur are discussed in the following chapter.

Keywords

Aseptic Loosening Femoral Stem Femoral Osteotomy Thigh Pain Ceramic Head 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References_5

References

  1. 1.
    Allan G, Lavoie GJ, McDonald S et al (1991) Proximal femoral allografts in revision hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 73:235–240PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blackley HRL, Davis AM et al (2001) Proximal femoral allografts for reconstruction of bone stock in revision arthroplasty of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am 83:346PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Crawford SA, Siney PD, Wroblewski BM (2000) Revision of failed total hip arthroplasty with a proximal femoral modular cemented stem. J Bone Joint Surg Br 82(5):684–688PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gie GA, Linder L, Ling LS et al (1993) Contained morselized allograft in revision total hip arthroplasty surgical technique. Orthop Clin North Am 24:717–725PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Halliday BR, English HW, Timperley AJ et al (2003) Femoral impaction grafting with cement in revision total hip replacement. Evolution of the technique and results. J Bone Joint Surg Br 85(6):809–817Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Moreland JR, Moreno MA (2001) Cementless femoral revision arthroplasty of the hip: minimum 5 years follow up. Clin Orthop Relat Res Dec(393):194–201Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Norwegian Arthroplasty Register annual report 2009Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Paprosky WG, Greidanus NV, Antoniou J (1999) Minimum 10-year-results of extensively porous-coated stems in revision hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res Dec(369): 230–242Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Reikerås O, Gunderson RB (2006) Excellent results with femoral revision surgery using an extensively hydroxyapa-tite-coated stem: 59 patients followed for 10–16 years. Acta Orthop 77(1):98–103PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Seth S, Leopold M et al (1999) Current status of impaction allografting for revision of a femoral component. J Bone Joint Surg Am 81:1337–1345Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Swedish Arthroplasty Register annual report 2008Google Scholar

Referneces

  1. 1.
    Benson E, Christensen C, Monesmith E et al (2000) Particulate bone grafting of osteolytic femoral lesions around stable cementless stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res Dec(381): 58–67Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Learmonth ID, Hussell JG, Grobler GP (1996) Unpredictable progression of osteolysis following cementless hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop Scand 67:245–248PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Maloney W, Jasty M, Harris WH (1990) Endosteal erosion in association with stable uncemented femoral components J Bone Joint Surg Am 72:1025–1034Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wanz Z, Dorr LD (1996) Natural history of femoral focal osteolysis with proximal ingrowth smooth stem implant. J Arthroplasty 11:718–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

References

  1. 1.
    Ferney BJ, Blumenfeld TJ, Bargar WL (2007) Time to revision of primary THA is shorter for specialists than non specialists. Clin Orthop Relat Res 485:175–179Google Scholar
  2. 12.
    Pinaroli A, Lavoie F, Cartillier J-C et al (2009) Conservative femoral stem revision: avoiding therapeutic escalation J Arthroplasty 24(3):365–373Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Reikeras O, Gunderson RB (2006) Excellent results with femoral revision surgery using an extensively hydroxyapa-tite-coated stem: 59 patients followed for 10–16 years. Acta Orthop 77(1):98–103PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

References

  1. 1.
    Board TN, Gambhir AK, Hoad-Reddick A et al (2008) Uncemented Stems in Revision Hip Arthroplasty. Presented at the British Hip Society meeting, Norwich, 2008Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Crawford SA, Siney PD, Wroblewski BM (2000) Revision of failed total hip arthroplasty with a proximal femoral modular cemented stem. J Bone Joint Surg Br 82(5):684–688PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Halliday BR, English HW, Timperley AJ et al (2003) Femoral impaction grafting with cement in revision total hip replacement. Evolution of the technique and results. J Bone Joint Surg Br 85(6):809–817Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Paprosky WG, Greidanus NV, Antoniou J (1999) Minimum 10-year-results of extensively porous-coated stems in revision hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res Dec(369): 230–242Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Paprosky WG, Burnett RS (2002) Assessment and classification of bone stock deficiency in revision total hip arthro-plasty. Am J Orthop 31(8):459–464PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Reikerås O, Gunderson RB (2006) Excellent results with femoral revision surgery using an extensively hydroxyapa-tite-coated stem: 59 patients followed for 10–16 years. Acta Orthop 77(1):98–103PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vidalain JP (1998) HA coated long stems in revision arthroplasty. Retrospective analysis of a continuous series of 109 KAR prostheses. Paper presented at the European Hip Society meeting. Beaune, 1998Google Scholar

References

  1. 1.
    Chandler HP, Ayres DK, Tan RC (1995) Revision total hip replacement using the S-ROM femoral component. Clin Orthop Relat Res 130:319–322Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gie GA, Linder L, Ling RS et al (1993) Impacted cancellous allografts and cement for revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 73:14–21Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Harris WH, Mulroy RD, Malone WJ et al (1991) Intraoperative measurement of rotational stability of femoral components of total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res May; (266):119–121Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hozack WJ, Mesa JJ, Rothman RH (1996) Head-neck modularity for total hip arthroplasty; Is it necessary? J Arthroplasty 11:397–399PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kempf JF, Hhuten D, Giraud P et al (1989) Résultats des rescellements fémoraux. Rev Chir Orthop 75(1):48–52Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kim YK, Kim HJ, Song WS et al (2004) Experience with the BICONTACT revision stems with distal interlocking. J Arthroplasty 19:27–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mahomed N, Schaztker J, Hearn T (1993) Biomechanical analysis of a distally interlocked press-fit femoral total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 8:129–132PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Massin P, Geais L, Astoin E et al (2000) The anatomic basis for the concept of lateralized femoral stem: a frontal plane radiographic study of the proximal femur. J Arthroplasty 15:93–101PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Migaud H, Jardin C, Fontaine C et al (1997) Reconstruction fémorale par des allogreffes spongieuses impactées et proté-gées par un treillis métallique au cours de révisions de pro-thèses totales de hanche. Dix neuf cas au recul moyen de 83 mois. Rev Chir Orthop 83:360–367PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Migaud H, Gueguen G, Duhamel A (2000) Reprise fémorale dans les arthroplasties de la hanche. Avantages et inconvé-nients des abords osseux extensifs Rev Chir Orthop 86(I):69–72Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Philippot R, Delangle F, Verdot FX et al (2009) Femoral deficiency reconstruction using a hydroxyapatite-coated locked modular stem. A series of 43 total hip revisions. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 95(2):119–26Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Raman R, Kamath RP, Parikh A et al (2005) Revision of cemented hip arthroplasty using a hydroxyapatite-ceramic-coated femoral component. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87:1061–1067PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rubasch HE, Harris WH (1988) Revision of nonseptic loose, cemented femoral components using modern cementing techniques. J Arthroplasty 3:241–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Subramanian S, Argawal M, Board T et al (2010) Distally locked, fully hydroxyapatite coated modular long stems in salvage revision hip arthroplasty: a report of early experience Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 20:17–21Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Trikha SP, Siongh S, Rayhnam OW et al (2005) Hydroxyapatite-ceramic-coated-femoral stems in revision hip surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87:1055–1060PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vidalain JP (2001) Advantages of a modular interlcked ha coated stem in revisions with major bone deficiencies. J Bone Joint Surg Br 83(II):112Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vives P, Plaquet JL, Leclair A et al (1992) Revision of inter-locking rod for loosening of THP. Concept - preliminary results Acta Orthop Belg 58(1):28–35Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wagner H (1989) Revisions prothese für das Hüftgelenk. Ortopäde 75(I):25–60Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Centre for Hip SurgeryWrightington HospitalWiganUK

Personalised recommendations