Advertisement

Experience with Revision Arthroplasties for Failed Cemented Total Hip Replacements Using Uncemented Lord and PM Prostheses

  • R. Parhofer
  • W. Mönch
Conference paper

Abstract

Since December, 1979, we have not used cement in our revisions of failed total hip arthroplasties. To date, 67 revision arthroplasties have been performed in 63 patients (Table 1). Fifty-nine of these were first revisions, and 8 were re-revisions. The patients averaged 68.2 years of age. Fig. 1 shows the increase in the number of revisions performed by us in recent years as well as the types of prostheses used. Initially we used Lord prostheses. For various reasons we abandoned their use, however, first in primary arthroplasties and later in revisions as well. Lately we have been using PM prostheses
Fig. 1

Number of revision arthroplasties performed on a yearly basis. Z Revision done with cemented components; L revision with uncemented Lord prosthesis (How Medica); P revision with uncemented PM prosthesis (Aesculap Instruments)

Table 1

Revision Arihroplasties Performed at our Hospilal

Numbcrof revisions performed

First revision

Sccond revision

Average age of patienis

♂21

18

3

70.7

♀46

41

5

67.0

♂+♀67

59

8

68.2

exclusively. Most of the revisions had become necessary after a period of 6–10 years. In all but 3 cases we replaced both the femoral and acetabular components of the failed THA.

Keywords

Revision Arthroplasties Screw Thread Primary Arthroplasties Cementless Fixation Granulation Cyst 
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.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Parhofer
  • W. Mönch

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations