Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Was tun, wenn die Hüftendoprothese versagt?

Neue Trends in der Revisionsendoprothetik

What can be done when hip prostheses fail?

New trends in revision endoprosthetics

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Der Orthopäde Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Die Zahl der Revisionsoperationen nach künstlichem Gelenkersatz des Hüftgelenks steigt stetig. Die Rekonstruktionsverfahren stellen hohe Ansprüche an den Operateur  und die verwendeten Implantatsysteme. Neue Entwicklungen aus der Forschung und Industrie erweitern die Möglichkeiten zur Versorgung der Patienten. Der vorliegende Artikel soll einen Überblick über den „state of the art“ der Revisionsendoprothetik des Hüftgelenks geben und neue Trends aufzeigen.

Abstract

Revision surgery after total hip arthroplasty is increasing steadily in numbers. These procedures demand high performance from both the treating surgeon as well as the implants used. Novel developments from basic research and industrial partners extend the possibilities for treating affected patients. This article gives an overview of the state of the art in revision hip arthroplasty: new techniques and trends are outlined and presented.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3
Abb. 4
Abb. 5
Abb. 6

Literatur

  1. Strobel C, Bormann N, Kadow-Romacker A et al (2011) Sequential release kinetics of two (gentamicin and BMP-2) or three (gentamicin, IGF-I and BMP-2) substances from a one-component polymeric coating on implants. J Control Release 156:37–45

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Della Valle CJ, Paprosky WG (2004) The femur in revision total hip arthroplasty evaluation and classification. Clin Orthop Relat Res 420:55–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Deml M, Ascherl R, Nöth U et al (2010) Klinische Langzeitergebnisse eines zementfreien, modularen Hüftrevisionsschaftendoprothesensystems aus einer prospektiven Multi-Center-Studie. Deutscher Kongress für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie 2010. German Medical Science GMS, Berlin

  4. Erli HJ, Marx R, Paar O et al (2003) Surface pretreatments for medical application of adhesion. Biomed Eng Online 2:15

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Garbuz D, Morsi E, Mohamed N et al (1996) Classification and reconstruction in revision acetabular arthroplasty with bone stock deficiency. Clin Orthop Relat Res 324:98–107

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gollwitzer H, Diehl P, Gerdesmeyer L et al (2006) Diagnostic strategies in cases of suspected periprosthetic infection of the knee. A review of the literature and current recommendations. Orthopade 35:904–916

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Goosen JH, Kums AJ, Kollen BJ et al (2009) Porous-coated femoral components with or without hydroxyapatite in primary uncemented total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 129:1165–1169

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Gravius S, Mumme T, Andereya S et al (2007) The morse taper junction in modular revision hip replacement. Z Orthop Unfall 145:157–160

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Gravius S, Pagenstert G, Weber O et al (2009) Acetabular defect reconstruction in revision surgery of the hip. Autologous, homologous or metal? Orthopade 38:729–740

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Gravius S, Wimmer M, Deml M et al (2010) Femoral revision with impaction grafting with the uncemented MRP-TITAN revision stem: results of a prospective controlled study of 243 patients. Swiss Med Wkly 140 (Suppl 181):25

    Google Scholar 

  11. Gruner A, Heller KD (2009) Revision hip arthroplastiy of the hip joint. Revision of the femur: which implant is indicated when? Orthopade 38:667–680

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Guyen O, Pibarot V, Vaz G et al (2009) Use of a dual mobility socket to manage total hip arthroplasty instability. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467:465–472

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Habenicht G (2009) Kleben: Grundlagen, Technologien, Anwendungen. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York

  14. Hummel MT, Malkani AL, Yakkanti MR et al (2009) Decreased dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty using larger femoral head size and posterior capsular repair. J Arthroplasty 24:73–76

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Issack PS, Nousiainen M, Beksac B et al (2009) Acetabular component revision in total hip arthroplasty. Part II: management of major bone loss and pelvic discontinuity. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 38:550–556

    Google Scholar 

  16. Izquierdo RJ, Northmore-Ball MD (1994) Long-term results of revision hip arthroplasty. Survival analysis with special reference to the femoral component. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 76:34–39

    Google Scholar 

  17. Jamsen E, Huhtala H, Puolakka T et al (2009) Risk factors for infection after knee arthroplasty. A register-based analysis of 43,149 cases. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 91:38–47

    Google Scholar 

  18. Jasty M, Maloney WJ, Bragdon CR et al (1990) Histomorphological studies of the long-term skeletal responses to well fixed cemented femoral components. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 72:1220–1229

    Google Scholar 

  19. Katthagen BD, Prub A (2008) Bone allografting. Orthopade 37:764–771

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kavanagh BF, Ilstrup DM, Fitzgerald RH Jr (1985) Revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 67:517–526

    Google Scholar 

  21. Ketonis C, Barr S, Adams CS et al (2011) Vancomycin bonded to bone grafts prevents bacterial colonization. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 55:487–494

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Kittinger C, Marth E, Windhager R et al (2011) Antimicrobial activity of gentamicin palmitate against high concentrations of Staphylococcus aureus. J Mater Sci Mater Med 22:1447–1453

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Kwong LM, Jasty M, Harris WH (1993) High failure rate of bulk femoral head allografts in total hip acetabular reconstructions at 10 years. J Arthroplasty 8:341–346

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Lappalainen R, Santavirta SS (2005) Potential of coatings in total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 46:72–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Leopold SS, Rosenberg AG, Bhatt RD et al (1999) Cementless acetabular revision. Evaluation at an average of 10.5 years. Clin Orthop Relat Res 369:179–186

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Mahoney CR, Fehringer EV, Kopjar B et al (2005) Femoral revision with impaction grafting and a collarless, polished, tapered stem. Clin Orthop Relat Res 432:181–187

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Marx R (1987) Causes of failure of adhesives in adhesive bridges. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 97:1081–1086

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Maurer TB, Ochsner PE (2006) Infected knee arthroplasty. A treatment algorithm at the Kantonsspital Liestal, Switzerland. Orthopade 35:917–928

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Meding JB, Galley MR, Ritter MA (2010) High survival of uncemented proximally porous-coated titanium alloy femoral stems in osteoporotic bone. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468:441–447

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Müller-Rath R, Wirtz DC, Siebert CH et al (2008) Amphiphilic bonder improves adhesion at the acrylic bone cement-bone interface of cemented acetabular components in total hip arthroplasty: in vivo tests in an ovine model. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 128:701–707

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Mumme T, Gravius S, Andereya S et al (2007) Improvement of the long-term adhesive strength between bone cement and bone in cemented cup arthroplasty: ex-vivo study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 127:409–416

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Mumme T, Marx R, Müller-Rath R et al (2008) Surface pretreatment of endoprostheses by silica/silane to optimise the hydrolytic stability between bone cement and metal. Total hip and knee arthroplasty. Orthopade 37:240–250

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Mumme T, Marx R, Müller-Rath R et al (2008) Surface coating to improve the metal-cement bonding in cemented femur stems. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 128:773–781

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Mumme T, Müller-Rath R, Andereya S et al (2007) Uncemented femoral revision arthroplasty using the modular revision prosthesis MRP-TITAN revision stem. Oper Orthop Traumatol 19:56–77

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Musil R, Tiller HJ (1989) Silicoater procedures after 5-year clinical trial. Zahnarztl Prax 40:124–128

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Niehaus AJ, Anderson DE, Samii VF et al (2009) Effects of orthopedic implants with a polycaprolactone polymer coating containing bone morphogenetic protein-2 on osseointegration in bones of sheep. Am J Vet Res 70:1416–1425

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Paprosky WG, Lawrence JM, Cameron HU (1990) Acetabular defect classification: clinical application. Orthop Rev 19 (Suppl 1):3–16

    Google Scholar 

  38. Pekkarinen J, Alho A, Lepisto J et al (2000) Impaction bone grafting in revision hip surgery. A high incidence of complications. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 82:103–107

    Google Scholar 

  39. Ritschl P, Halhammer F (2008) Experten-Statement: Protheseninfektionen in der Orthopädie. Osterr Arzteztg (Suppl 2):1–16

    Google Scholar 

  40. Sanchez Marquez JM, Del Sel N, Leali A et al (2009) Case reports: tantalum debris dispersion during revision of a tibial component for TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467:1107–1110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Schramm M, Wirtz DC, Holzwarth U et al (2000) The morse taper junction in modular revision hip replacement. A biomechanical and retrieval analysis. Biomed Tech (Berl) 45:105–109

    Google Scholar 

  42. Schreurs BW, Spierings PT, Huiskes R et al (1988) Effects of preparation techniques on the porosity of acrylic cements. Acta Orthop Scand 59:403–409

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Springer BD, Fehring TK, Griffin WL et al (2009) Why revision total hip arthroplasty fails. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467:166–173

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Starker M, Kandziora F, Jager A et al (1998) Acetabular reconstruction using acetabular reinforcement rings. Orthopade 27:366–374

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Steinbrink K, Frommelt L (1995) Treatment of periprosthetic infection of the hip using one-stage exchange surgery. Orthopade 24:335–343

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Weeden SH, Schmidt RH (2007) The use of tantalum porous metal implants for Paprosky 3A and 3B defects. J Arthroplasty 22:151–155

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Wirtz DC, Niethard FU (1997) Etiology, diagnosis and therapy of aseptic hip prosthesis loosening – a status assessment. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 135:270–280

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Wolf CF, Gu NY, Doctor JN et al (2011) Comparison of one and two-stage revision of total hip arthroplasty complicated by infection: a Markov expected-utility decision analysis. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 93:631–639

    Google Scholar 

  49. Zimmerli W, Trampuz A, Ochsner PE (2004) Prosthetic-joint infections. N Engl J Med 351:1645–1654

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Interessenkonflikt

Der korrespondierende Autor gibt an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Klinik und Poliklinik für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, Sigmund-Freud-Str. 25, 53127, Bonn, Deutschland

    S. Gravius, T. Randau & D.C. Wirtz

Authors
  1. S. Gravius
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. T. Randau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. D.C. Wirtz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. Gravius.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gravius, S., Randau, T. & Wirtz, D. Was tun, wenn die Hüftendoprothese versagt?. Orthopäde 40, 1084–1094 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00132-011-1844-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00132-011-1844-0

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation