Top

European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology

Published in:

01-05-2015 | Original Article

Bone remodeling after a mean of 10 years in diaphyseal cortical defects repaired with femoral revision using bypass fixation of extensively porous-coated stems with high stiffness

Authors: Kiyokazu Fukui, Ayumi Kaneuji, Tanzo Sugimori, Toru Ichiseki, Tadami Matsumoto

Published in: European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology | Issue 4/2015

Abstract

Introduction

Femoral component revisions with extensively porous-coated stems have shown promising clinical results, although there are still concerns over stress-shielding.

Materials and methods

We retrospectively reviewed data for 18 patients undergoing femoral component revisions with extensively porous-coated stems with high stiffness. The average length of follow-up was 10 years (range 6–13.7 years).

Results

Radiographic evidence of a bone-ingrown stem was present in 94 % of the hips, and stable fibrous fixation was present in only one hip, but no hips were considered unstable. There was mild stress-shielding in 15 hips, moderate stress-shielding in one hip, and severe stress-shielding in two hips. In one of the latter two hips, stress-shielding was progressive even 8 years after revision surgery. In 12 (92 %) of the 13 hips in which bypass fixation for diaphyseal cortical defects was used, there was good remodeling.

Conclusions

We suggest that femoral component revision using extensive porous-coated stems is a useful option that may allow for healing of diaphyseal cortical defects.

Cram P, Lu X, Callaghan JJ, Vaughan-Sarrazin MS, Cai X, Li Y (2012) Long-term trends in hip arthroplasty use and volume. J Arthroplasty 27:278–285CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

Kavanagh BF, Ilstrup DM, Fitzgerald RH Jr (1995) Revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 67:517–526

Mulroy WF, Harris WH (1996) Revision total hip arthroplasty with use of so-called second-generation cementing techniques for aseptic loosening of the femoral component: a fifteen-year-average follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 78:325–330PubMed

Malkani AL, Lewallen DG, Cabanella ME, Wallrichs SL (1996) Femoral component revision using an uncemented, proximally coated, long-stem prosthesis. J Arthroplasty 11:411–418. doi:10.1016/s0883-5403(96)80031-3 CrossRefPubMed

Woolson ST, Delaney TJ (1995) Failure of proximally porous-coated femoral prosthesis in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 10(suppl):S22–S28. doi:10.1016/s0883-5403(05)80227-x CrossRefPubMed

Katz RP, Callaghan JJ, Sullivan PM, Johnston RC (1995) Results of cemented femoral revision total hip arthroplasty using improved cementing techniques. Clin Orthop Relat Res 319:178–183. doi:10.1097/00003086-199510000-00018 PubMed

Hamilton WG, Cashen DV, Ho H, Hopper RH Jr, Engh CA (2007) Extensively porous-coated stems for femoral revision: a choice for all seasons. J Arthroplasty 22(suppl 1):106–110. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2007.01.002 CrossRefPubMed

Engh CA Sr, Hopper RH (2000) Extensively porous-coated stems: a choice for all seasons. Orthopedics 23:951–952PubMed

Paprosky WG, Greidanus NV, Antoniou J (1999) Minimum 10 year results of extensively porous-coated stems in revision hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 369:230–242. doi:10.1097/00003086-199912000-00024 CrossRefPubMed

10.

Engh CA, Massin P, Suthers KE (1990) Roentgenographic assessment of the biologic fixation of porous-surfaced femoral components. Clin Orthop Relat Res 257:107–128. doi:10.1097/00003086-199008000-00022 PubMed

11.

Krishnamurthy AB, MacDonald SJ, Paprosky WG (1997) 5- to 13 year follow-up study on cementless femoral components in revision surgery. J Arthroplasty 12:839–847. doi:10.1016/s0883-5403(97)90152-2 CrossRefPubMed

12.

Moreland JR, Moreno MA (2001) Cementless femoral revision arthroplasty of the hip: minimum 5 years followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res 393:194–201. doi:10.1097/00003086-200112000-00022 CrossRefPubMed

13.

Jayakumar P, Malik AK, Islam SU, Haddad FS (2011) Revision hip arthroplasty using an extensively porous coated stem: medium term results. Hip Int 21:129–135. doi:10.5301/HIP.2011.6504 CrossRefPubMed

14.

Thomsen PB, Jensen NJ, Kampmann J, Bæk Hansen T (2013) Revision hip arthroplasty with an extensively porous-coated stem—excellent long-term results also in severe femoral bone stock loss. Hip Int 23:352–358. doi:10.5301/hipint.5000032 CrossRefPubMed

15.

Kimura H, Kaneuji A, Sugimori T, Matsumoto T (2008) Revision total hip arthroplasty by nonmodular short and long cementless stems. J Orthop Sci 13:335–340. doi:10.1007/s00776-008-1241-7 CrossRefPubMed

16.

Johnston RC, Fitzgerald RH Jr, Harris WH, Poss R, Müller ME, Sledge CB (1990) Clinical and radiographic evaluation of total hip replacement. A standard system of terminology for reporting results. J Bone Joint Surg Am 72:161–168PubMed

17.

Harris WH (1969) Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end result study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 51:737–755PubMed

18.

Engh CA, Bobyn JD, Glassman AH (1987) Porous-coated hip replacement: the factors governing bone ingrowth, stress shielding, and clinical results. J Bone Joint Surg Br 69:45–55PubMed

19.

Engh CA, Bobyn JD (1988) The influence of stem size and extent of porous coating on femoral bone resorption after primary cementless hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 231:7–28PubMed

20.

Gruen TA, McNeice GM, Amstutz HC (1979) Modes of failure of cemented stem-type femoral components: a radiographic analysis of loosening. Clin Orthop Relat Res 141:17–27PubMed

21.

Haydon CM, Mehin R, Burnett S, Rorabeck CH, Bourne RB, McCalden RW, MacDonald SJ (2004) Revision total hip arthroplasty with use of a cemented femoral component. Results at a mean of ten years. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86:1179–1185PubMed

22.

Hultmark P, Kärrholm J, Strömberg C, Herberts P, Mose CH, Malchau H (2000) Cemented first-time revisions of the femoral component: prospective 7 to 13 years’ follow-up using second-generation and third-generation technique. J Arthroplasty 15:551–561. doi:10.1054/arth.2000.4811 CrossRefPubMed

23.

Lawrence J, Engh C, Macalino G (1993) Revision total hip arthroplasty: long-term results without cement. Orthop Clin N Am 24:635–644

24.

Nourbash PS, Paprosky WG (1998) Cementless femoral design concerns. Rationale for extensive porous coating. Clin Orthop Relat Res 355:189–199. doi:10.1097/00003086-199810000-00020 CrossRefPubMed

25.

Crawford CH 3rd, Malkani AL, Incavo SJ, Morris HB, Krupp RJ, Baker D (2004) Femoral component revision using an extensively hydroxyapatite-coated stem. J Arthroplasty 19:8–13. doi:10.1016/s0883-5403(03)00454-6 CrossRefPubMed

26.

Reikerås O, Gunderson RB (2006) Excellent results with femoral revision surgery using an extensively hydroxyapatite-coated stem: 59 patients followed for 10–16 years. Acta Orthop 77:98–103. doi:10.1080/17453670610045759 CrossRefPubMed

27.

Gulotta LV, Baldini A, Foote K, Lyman S, Nestor BJ (2008) Femoral revision with an extensively hydroxyapatite-coated femoral component. HSS J 4:55–61. doi:10.1007/s11420-007-9068-x CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

28.

Callaghan JJ, Templeton JE, Liu SS, Warth LC, Chung YY (2006) Improved results using extensively coated THA stems at minimum 5 year followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res 453:91–96. doi:10.1097/01.blo.0000238850.23744.58 CrossRefPubMed

29.

Kronick JL, Barba ML, Paprosky WG (1997) Extensively coated femoral components in young patients. Clin Orthop Relat Res 344:263–274. doi:10.1097/00003086-199711000-00026 CrossRefPubMed

30.

Whiteside LA (2004) Major femoral bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty treated with tapered, porous-coated stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res 429:222–226. doi:10.1097/01.blo.0000150129.65400.78 CrossRefPubMed

31.

Nishino T, Mishima H, Miyakawa S, Kawamura H, Ochiai N (2008) Midterm results of the Synergy cementless tapered stem: stress shielding and bone quality. J Orthop Sci 13:498–503. doi:10.1007/s00776-008-1272-0 CrossRefPubMed

32.

Paprosky WG, Burnett RS (2002) Extensively porous-coated femoral stems in revision hip arthroplasty: rationale and results. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 31:471–474

33.

Engh CA Jr, Young AM, Engh CA Sr, Hopper RH Jr (2003) Clinical consequences of stress shielding after porous-coated total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 417:157–163PubMed

34.

Hartzband MA, Glassman AH, Goldberg VM, Jordan LR, Crowninshield RD, Fricka KB, Jordan LC (2010) Survivorship of a low-stiffness extensively porous-coated femoral stem at 10 years. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468:433–440. doi:10.1007/s11999-009-0950-3 CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

35.

Raman R, Kamath RP, Parikh A, Angus PD (2005) Revision of cemented hip arthroplasty using a hydroxyapatite-ceramic-coated femoral component. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87:1061–1067. doi:10.1302/0301-620x.87b8.16161 CrossRefPubMed

36.

Hamilton WG, McAuley JP, Tabaraee E, Engh CA Sr (2008) The outcome of rerevision of an extensively porous-coated stem with another extensively porous-coated stem. J Arthroplasty 23:170–174. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2007.03.038 CrossRefPubMed

Title: Bone remodeling after a mean of 10 years in diaphyseal cortical defects repaired with femoral revision using bypass fixation of extensively porous-coated stems with high stiffness
Authors: Kiyokazu Fukui
Ayumi Kaneuji
Tanzo Sugimori
Toru Ichiseki
Tadami Matsumoto
Publication date: 01-05-2015
Publisher: Springer Paris
Published in: European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology / Issue 4/2015
Print ISSN: 1633-8065
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1068
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-014-1582-1

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Bone remodeling after a mean of 10 years in diaphyseal cortical defects repaired with femoral revision using bypass fixation of extensively porous-coated stems with high stiffness

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 4/2015

Reconstruction of multiple myeloma lesions around the pelvis and acetabulum

Predictors of iatrogenic lateral wall fractures while treating intertrochanteric fracture femur with the dynamic hip screw system in Indian patients

Past and present of the use of cerclage wires in orthopedics

Review of 41 Neer’s mini-open operations with up to nine-year follow-up and a study of the influence of occupational disease

Comparative study of high tibial osteotomy using dynamic axial fixator and locked low-profile plate in medial osteoarthritis of knee

Reconstruction of dorsal hand and finger defects with reverse radial fasciocutaneous forearm flaps