Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Standards in der Endoprothetik nach Gelenkverletzungen

Standards in endoprosthetics after joint injuries

  • Standards in der Unfallchirurgie
  • Published:
Trauma und Berufskrankheit

Zusammenfassung

Die Arbeit gibt einen Überblick über die Standards in der endoprothetischen Versorgung der traumatischen und der posttraumatischen Veränderungen der großen Gelenke. Es werden v. a. Indikation und Arten der prothetischen Versorgung als Alternative zu speziellen gelenkerhaltenden Verfahren für Schulter-, Ellenbogen-, Hüft-, Knie- und oberes Sprunggelenk betrachtet.

Abstract

This paper provides an overview on standards of endoprosthetic replacement of major joints due to traumatic and post-traumatic alterations. The indications and types of endoprosthetic replacement as an alternative to joint-preserving procedures for shoulder, elbow, hip, knee and ankle joints are discussed.

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
Abb. 7
Abb. 8
Abb. 9
Abb. 10
Abb. 11
Abb. 12
Abb. 13
Abb. 14
Abb. 15
Abb. 16
Abb. 17
Abb. 18
Abb. 19
Abb. 20
Abb. 21
Abb. 22
Abb. 23
Abb. 24

Literatur

  1. Bosch U, Fremerey RW, Skutek M et al. (1996) Die Hemiarthroplastik – Primär- oder Sekundärmaßnahme für 3- und 4-Fragment-Frakturen des proximalen Humerus beim älteren Menschen? Unfallchirurg 99: 656

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Habermeyer P (2002) Schulterchirurgie. Urban & Fischer, München

  3. Habermeyer P (1997) Die Humeruskopffraktur. Unfallchirurg 100: 820–837

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Helmy N, Hintermann B (2006) New trends in the treatment of proximal humerus fractures. Clin Orthop 442: 100–108

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Köstler W, Strohm PC, Südkamp NP (2003) Die proximale Humerusfraktur im hohen Lebensalter. Chirurg 74: 985–989

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Neumann K, Muhr G, Breitfuss H (1992) Primärer Kopfersatz der dislozierten Oberarmkopffraktur. Orthopade 21: 140

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Povacz P, Resch H (2004) Verletzungen des Schultergürtels und des Schultergelenkes. In: Mutschler W, Haas N (Hrsg) Praxis der Unfallchirurgie, 2. Aufl. Thieme, Stuttgart, S 678–689

  8. Rader CP, Keller HW, Rehm KE (1992) Die operative Behandlung dislozierter 3- und 4-Fragmentfrakturen des proximalen Humerus. Unfallchirurg 95: 613

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Simank P, Gay B (1993) Erfahrungen mit der Endoprothese bei Oberarmkopftrümmerfrakturen. Akt Traumatol 23: 361–365

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Tanner MW, Cofield RH (1983) Prosthetic arthroplasty for fractures and fracture-dislocations of the proximal humerus. Clin Orthop 179: 116

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Weber E, Matter P (1998) Operative Behandlung proximaler Humerusfrakturen – Internationale Multizenterstudie. Swiss Surg 4: 95

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Lill H (2006) Die proximale Humerusfraktur. Thieme, Stuttgart

  13. Jensen CH, Jacobsen S, Ratchke M, Sonne-Holm S (2006) The GSB III elbow prosthesis in rheumatoid arthritis: a 2- to 9-year follow-up. Acta Orthop 77: 143–148

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lugt JC van der, Geskus RB, Rozing PM (2005) Primary Souter-Strathclyde total elbow prosthesis in rheumatoid arthritis. Surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87 [Suppl 1]: 67–77

  15. Cobb TK, Morrey BF (1997) Total elbow arthroplasty as primary treatment for distal humeral fractures in elderly patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 79: 826–832

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Frankle MA, Herscovici D Jr, Di Pasquale TG et al. (2003) A comparison of open reduction and internal fixation and primary total elbow arthroplasty in the treatment of intraarticular distal humerus fractures in women older than age 65. J Orthop Trauma 17: 473–480

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ray PS, Kakarlapudi K, Rajsekhar C, Bhamra MS (2000) Total elbow arthroplasty as primary treatment for distal humeral fractures in elderly patients. Injury 31: 687–692

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Machner A, Pap G, Schenk K et al. (1999) Experiences with the GSB (Geschwend-Scheier-Bahler) III total endoprosthesis in the elbow joint. Zentralbl Chir 124: 993–998

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Schmidt K, Hilker A, Miehlke RK (2007) Differences in elbow replacement in rheumatoid arthritis. Orthopade 36: 714–722

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Gschwend N, Simmen BR, Matejovsky Z (1996) Late complications in elbow arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 5: 86–96

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Muller LP, Kamineni S, Rommens PM, Morrey BF (2005) Primary total elbow replacement for fractures of the distal humerus. Oper Orthop Traumatol 17: 119–142

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Bhandari M, Devereaux PJ, Swiontkowski MF et al. (2003) Internal fixation compared with arthroplasty for displaced fractures of the femoral neck: a meta-analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85: 1673–1681

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Blomfeldt R, Tornkvist H, Ponzer S et al. (2005) Internal fixation versus hemiarthroplasty for displaced fractures of the femoral neck in elderly patients with severe cognitive impairment. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87: 523–529

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Bonnaire F, Lein T, Hohaus T, Weber A (2005) Prothetische Versorgung proximaler Femurfrakturen. Unfallchirurg 108: 387–400

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Cöster A, Haberkamp M, Allolio B (1994) Inzidenz von Schenkelhalsfrakturen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland im internationalen Vergleich. Soz Praventivmed 39: 287–292

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Unfallchirurgie (DGU) (1999) Leitlinien Schenkelhalsfraktur. http://www.dgu-online.de/de/leitlinien/schenkelhalsfraktur.jsp

  27. El-Abed K, McGuiness A, Brunner A et al. (2005) Comparison of outcomes following uncemented hemiarthroplasty and dynamic hip screw in the treatment of displaced subcapital hip fractures in patients aged greater than 70 years. Acta Orthop Belg 71: 48–54

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Haidukewych GJ, Rothwell WS, Jacofsky DJ et al. (2004) Operative treatment of femoral neck fractures in patients between the ages of fifteen and fifty years. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86: 1711–1716

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Hoellen IP, Mentzel M, Bischoff M, Kinzl L (1997) Acetabulumfraktur beim alten Menschen – primäre endoprothetische Versorgung. Orthopade 26: 348–353

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Pohlemann T, Tscheme H (1998) Therapie. In: Tscheme H, Pohlemann T (Hrsg) Unfallchirurgie – Becken und Acetabulum. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York Tokio, S 393–341

  31. Pfeifer M, Wittenberg R, Würtz R, Minne HW (2001) Schenkelhalsfrakturen in Deutschland. Dtsch Arztebl 98: 1751–1757

    Google Scholar 

  32. Schlickewei W, Kuner EH, Elsässer B (1997) Langzeitergebnisse und Spätschäden nach Hüftpfannenfrakturen. Orthopade 26: 375–383

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Barnes CL, Clark AE, Thornhill T (1993) Patient selection and indications for total knee replacement. In: Rand JA (ed) Total knee arthroplasty. Raven, New York, pp 85–92

  34. Blauth W, Hassenpflug J (1991) Scharnierendoprothesen des Kniegelenkes. Orthopade 20: 206–215

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Brick GW, Scott RD (1988) The patellofemoral component of total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 231: 163–178

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Grace JN, Rand JA (1988) Patellar instability after total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 237: 184–189

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Hube R, Reichel H (2003) Modulare Revisionssysteme in der Knieendoprothetik. Orthopade 32: 506–515, Maryland: 215–235 (1987)

  38. Insall JN (ed) (1984) Total knee replacement. Surgery of the knee. Churchill Livingstone, New York, pp 587–695

  39. Jerosch J, Fuchs S, Heisel J (1997) Knieendoprothetik – Eine Standortbestimmung. Dtsch Arztebl 94: A-449–A-455, Heft 8

    Google Scholar 

  40. Jerosch J, Heisel J (1999) Knieendoprothetik. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York Tokio

  41. Kirschner S, Lützner J, Fickert S, Günther KP (2006) Revision unikondylärer Knieprothesen. Orthopade 35: 184–191

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Kohn D (2000) Das Knie. Thieme, Stuttgart

  43. Saleh KJ, Dykes DC, Tweedie RL et al. (2002) Functional outcome after total knee arthroplasty revision: a meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty 17: 967–977

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Bolton-Maggs BG, Sudlow RA, Freeman MA (1985) Total ankle arthroplasty. A long-term review of the London Hospital experience. J Bone Joint Surg Br 67: 785–790

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Bonnin M, Judet T, Colombier JA et al. (2004) Midterm results of the salto total ankle prothesis. Clin Orthop 424: 6–16

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Buchholz HW, Engelbrecht E, Siegel A (1973) Totale Sprunggelenkendoprothese Model St. George. Chirurg 44: 241–245

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Buechel FF, Pappas MJ, Iorio LJ (1988) New Jersey low contact stress total ankle replacement: biomechanical rationale and review of 23 cementless cases. Foot Ankle Int 8: 279–290

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Buechel FF, Pappas MJ (1992) Survivorship and clinical evaluation of cementless meniscal bearing total ankle replacements. Semin Arthroplasty 3: 43–50

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Buechel FF Sr, Buechel FF Jr, Pappas MJ (2002) Eighteen year evaluation of cementless meniscal bearing total ankle replacements. AAOS Instruct Course Lectures 51: 143–151

    Google Scholar 

  50. Carlsson ǺS, Montgomery F, Besjakov J (1998) Arthrodesis of the ankle secondary to replacement. Foot Ankle Int 19: 240–245

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Christ RM, Hagena FW (2005) Komplikationen und Revisionseingriffe nach OSG-Totalendoprothesen. Fuß Sprung 3: 112–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Coester L, Saltzman CL, Leupold J, Pontarelli W (2001) Long-term results following ankle arthrodesis for post-traumatic arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 83: 219–228

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Cooper PS (2001) Complications of ankle and tibiotalocalcaneal arthrodesis. Clin Orthop 391: 33–44

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Dini AA, Basset FH (1980) Evaluation of the early result of Smith total ankle replacement. Clin Orthop 146: 228–230

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Doets HC, Brand R, Nelissen RGHH (2006) Total ankle arthroplasty in inflammatory joint disease with use of two mobile-bearing designs. J Bone Joint Surg Am 88: 1272–1284

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Easley ME, Vertullo CJ, Urban WC, Nunley JA (2002) Total ankle arthoplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 10: 157–167

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Goodfellow J, O’Connor J (1978) The mechanics of the knee and prosthesis design. J Bone Joint Surg Br 60: 358–369

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Harper MX (1987) Deltoid ligament: an anatomical evaluation of function. Foot Ankle 8: 19–22

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Hintermann B (1999) Short- and mid-term results with the STAR total ankle prosthesis. Orthopade 28: 792–803

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Hintermann B, Valderrabano V (2001) Endoprothetik am oberen Sprunggelenk. Z Arztl Fortbild Qualitatssich 95: 187–194

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Hintermann B, Valderrabano V, Derreymaeker G, Dick W (2004) The HINTEGRA ankle: rationale and short-term results of 122 consecutive ankles. Clin Orthop 424: 57–68

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Hintermann B, Valderrabano V, Knupp K, Hoorisberger M (2006) Die HINTEGRA-Sprunggelenkendoprothese: Kurz- und mittelfristige Erfahrungen. Orthopade 35: 533–545

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Kapandji IA (Hrsg) (1987) Das obere Sprunggelenk. Funktionelle Anatomie des Gelenke, Bd 47. Enke, Stuttgart, S 150–163

  64. Kitaoka HB, Patzer GL (1996) Clinical results of the Mayo total ankle arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 78: 1658–1664

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Kirkup J (1985) Richard Smith ankle arthroplasty. J R Soc Med 78: 301–304

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Knupp M, Valderrabano V, Hintermann B (2006) Anatomische und biomechanische Überlegungen zur Sprungelenkprothetik. Orthopade 5: 489–494

    Google Scholar 

  67. Leardini A, O’Connor JJ, Catani F, Giannini S (1999) A geometric model of the human ankle joint. J Biomech 32: 585–591

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Leardini A, Catani F, Giannini S, O’Connor JJ (2001) Computer-assisted design of the sagittal shapes of a ligament-compatible total ankle replacement. Med Biol Eng Comput 39: 168–175

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Lord G, Marotte JH (1973) Prothese totale dechille. Rev Chir Orthop 59: 139–140

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Lowery RB (1995) Fractures of the talus and the os calcis. Opin Orthop 6: 25–34

    Google Scholar 

  71. Lundberg A, Svennson OK, Nemeth G, Selvik G (1989) The axis of rotation of the ankle joint. J Bone Joint Surg Br 71: 94–99

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Maurer F (2006) Verletzungen des oberen Sprunggelenks – Arthrodese und OSG – Prothese. Diskussion mit dem Auditorium. Trauma Berufskrankh 8 [Suppl 1]: 526–527

  73. Muir DC, Amendola A, Saltzman CL (2002) Long-term outcome of ankle arthrodesis. Foot Ankle Clin 7: 703–708

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Sailer R, Hackl W, Klestil T et al. (2002) Totalendoprothese des oberen Sprunggelenks nach posttraumatischer Arthrose. Unfallchirurg 2: 170–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Valderrabano V, Hintermann B, Dick W (2004) Scandinavian total ankle replacement: a 3.7-year average follow-up of 65 patients. Clin Orthop 424: 47–56

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Wood PLR, Deakin S (2003) Total ankle replacement. The results in 200 ankles. J Bone Joint Surg Br 85: 334–341

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Interessenkonflikt

Der korrespondierende Autor gibt an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Klinik für Unfall-, Hand- und Wiederherstellungschirurgie, BG Klinken Bergmannstrost, Merseburger Straße 165, 06112, Halle, Saale, Deutschland

    R. Großstück, T. Conrad, O. Deml, T. Handschuh, S. Brodt & G.O. Hofmann

Authors
  1. R. Großstück
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. T. Conrad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. O. Deml
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. T. Handschuh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. S. Brodt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. G.O. Hofmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. Großstück.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Großstück, R., Conrad, T., Deml, O. et al. Standards in der Endoprothetik nach Gelenkverletzungen. Trauma Berufskrankh 10, 155–170 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10039-008-1416-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10039-008-1416-7

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation