Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®
Published in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® 2/2011

01-02-2011 | Symposium: Papers Presented at the Hip Society Meetings 2010

Quality of Life Following Proximal Femoral Replacement Using a Modular System in Revision THA

Authors: Muhyeddine M. Al-Taki, MD, Bassam A. Masri, MD, Clive P. Duncan, MD, MSc, Donald S. Garbuz, MD, MHSc

Published in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® | Issue 2/2011

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Proximal femoral replacement using a segmental modular system is one option for revision THA in the presence of severe bone loss or periprosthetic fracture. While many papers report function in these patients, they do not describe the quality of life.

Questions/purposes

We evaluated the quality of life in patients undergoing proximal femoral replacement using a segmental modular system for severe bone loss.

Patients and Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 63 patients undergoing complex revision THA using a modular replacement system for nonneoplastic conditions between April 1996 and June 2006. Average age was 73 years (range, 23–94 years). Twenty-one patients were lost to followup and six patients died before 2-year minimum followup. The remaining 36 patients were followed for an average of 3.2 years (range, 2–10 years). Study patients were matched by age-decade to a control group of patients undergoing conventional revision THA. At baseline, both groups were comparable with respect to age, comorbidities, and quality-of-life scores.

Results

At last followup, the modular system group showed improvement in WOMAC function, WOMAC pain, Oxford score, and the SF-12 mental component. Compared to the control group, the modular system group scored lower on WOMAC function and Oxford scores, but there were no differences in any other scores.

Conclusions

In patients with severely compromised bone stock, a segmental modular replacement system can improve the quality of life. Special attention should be given to the stability of the hip intraoperatively and a constrained acetabular liner should be used when the risk of postoperative dislocation is high.

Level of Evidence

Level III, therapeutic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Literature
1.
Alberton GM, High WA, Morrey BF. Dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty: an analysis of risk factors and treatment options. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84:1788–1792.PubMed
2.
Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW. Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol. 1988;15:1833–1840.PubMed
3.
Berry DJ. Treatment of Vancouver B3 periprosthetic femur fractures with a fluted tapered stem. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;417:224–231.PubMed
4.
Chandler H, Clark J, Murphy S, McCarthy J, Penenberg B, Danylchuk K, Roehr B. Reconstruction of major segmental loss of the proximal femur in revision total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994;298:67–74.PubMed
5.
Charnley J. The long-term results of low-friction arthroplasty of the hip performed as a primary intervention. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1972;54:61–76.PubMed
6.
DeLee JG, Charnley J. Radiological demarcation of cemented sockets in total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1976;121:20–32.PubMed
7.
Duncan CP, Masri BA. Fractures of the femur after hip replacement. Instr Course Lect. 1995;44:293–304.PubMed
8.
Gie GA, Linder L, Ling RS, Simon JP, Slooff TJ, Timperley AJ. Impacted cancellous allografts and cement for revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1993;75:14–21.PubMed
9.
Gross AE. Allograft prosthetic composite. In: Barrack RL, Rosenberg AG, eds. The Hip. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2006:385–396.
10.
Gross AE, Hutchison CR. Proximal femoral allografts for reconstruction of bone stock in revision arthroplasty of the hip. Orthop Clin North Am. 1998;29:313–317.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Gruen TA, McNeice GM, Amstutz HC. “Modes of failure” of cemented stem-type femoral components: a radiographic analysis of loosening. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1979;141:17–27.PubMed
12.
Haddad FS, Garbuz DS, Masri BA, Duncan CP. Structural proximal femoral allografts for failed total hip replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2000;82:830–836.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Haddad FS, Masri BA, Garbuz DS, Duncan CP. Femoral bone loss in total hip arthroplasty: classification and preoperative planning. Instr Course Lect. 2000;49:83–96.PubMed
14.
Haentjens P, De Boeck H, Opdecam P. Proximal femoral replacement prosthesis for salvage of failed hip arthroplasty: complications in a 2–11 year follow-up study in 19 elderly patients. Acta Orthop Scand. 1996;67:37–42.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Johnsson R, Carlsson A, Kisch K, Moritz U, Zetterstrom R, Persson BM. Function following mega total hip arthroplasty compared with conventional total hip arthroplasty and healthy matched controls. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1985;192:159–167.PubMed
16.
Klein GR, Parvizi J, Rapuri V, Wolf CF, Hozack WJ, Sharkey PF, Purtill JJ. Proximal femoral replacement for the treatment of periprosthetic fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:1777–1781.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Mahomed N, Sledge C, Daltroy L, Fossel A, Katz J. Self-administered satisfaction scale for joint replacement arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1998;80(Suppl 1):9.
18.
Malkani A, Seti’ecerri J, Sim F, Chao E, Wallrichs S. Long-term results of proximal femoral replacement for non-neoplastic disorders. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1995;77:351–356.PubMed
19.
Morrey BF. Results of reoperation for hip dislocation: the big picture. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;429:94–101.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Murray DW, Fitzpatrick R, Rogers K, Pandit H, Beard DJ, Carr AJ, Dawson J. The use of the Oxford hip and knee scores. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89:1010–1014.PubMed
21.
Paprosky WG, Greidanus NV, Antoniou J. Minimum 10-year-results of extensively porous-coated stems in revision hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999;369:230–242.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Paprosky WG, Perona PG, Lawrence JM. Acetabular defect classification and surgical reconstruction in revision arthroplasty: a 6-year follow-up evaluation. J Arthroplasty. 1994;9:33–44.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Parvizi J, Sim FH. Proximal femoral replacements with megaprostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;420:169–175.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Parvizi J, Tarity TD, Slenker N, Wade F, Trappler R, Hozack WJ, Sim FH. Proximal femoral replacement in patients with non-neoplastic conditions. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:1036–1043.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Sim FH, Chao EY. Hip salvage by proximal femoral replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1981;63:1228–1239.PubMed
26.
Springer BD, Berry DJ, Lewallen DG. Treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures following total hip arthroplasty with femoral component revision. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85:2156–2162.PubMed
27.
Ware JE Jr, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-item short-form health survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996;34:220–233.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Zahiri CA, Schmalzried TP, Szuszczewcz ES, Amstutz HC. Assessing activity in joint replacement patients. J Arthroplasty. 1998;13:890–895.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Zaki SH, Sadiq S, Purbach B, Wroblewski BM. Periprosthetic femoral fractures treated with a modular distally cemented stem. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2007;15:163–166.
30.
Zehr RJ, Enneking WF, Scarborough MT. Allograft-prosthesis composite versus megaprosthesis in proximal femoral reconstruction. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996;322:207–223.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Quality of Life Following Proximal Femoral Replacement Using a Modular System in Revision THA
Authors
Muhyeddine M. Al-Taki, MD
Bassam A. Masri, MD
Clive P. Duncan, MD, MSc
Donald S. Garbuz, MD, MHSc
Publication date
01-02-2011
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® / Issue 2/2011
Print ISSN: 0009-921X
Electronic ISSN: 1528-1132
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-010-1522-2

Other articles of this Issue 2/2011

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® 2/2011 Go to the issue

Symposium: Papers Presented at the Hip Society Meetings 2010

Acetabular Component Positioning Using the Transverse Acetabular Ligament: Can You Find It and Does It Help?

Symposium: Papers Presented at the Hip Society Meetings 2010

A Comparison of Two Implant Systems in Restoration of Hip Geometry in Arthroplasty

Clinical Research

Giant Cell Tumor of Bone: Risk Factors for Recurrence

In Brief

In Brief: Pilon Fractures

Letter to the Editor

Letter to the Editor: Use of Morphometry to Quantify Osteolysis after Total Hip Arthroplasty

Symposium: Papers Presented at the Hip Society Meetings 2010

A Monoblock Porous Tantalum Acetabular Cup Has No Osteolysis on CT at 10 Years