ABSTRACT
Introducción: La pérdida de hueso proximal en la cirugía de revisión del vástago femoral es el principal desafío que enfrenta el cirujano al efectuar una revisión. El objetivo es obtener una fijación estable de los componentes, así como la restauración de la cinemática de la articulación. Materiales y Métodos: Evaluamos a 37 pacientes (39 revisiones femorales), entre 2010 y 2014, a quienes se les colocaron tallos cónicos no cementados de fijación distal (28 modulares y 11 no modulares). La edad promedio fue 63.5 años. Se incluyó a 18 (48,64%) mujeres y 19 (51,35%) hombres. Se intervinieron 14 (35,89%) casos de aflojamiento aséptico, 14 (35,89%) infecciones, 7 (17,94%) fracturas periprotésicas, 3 (7,69%) fracturas de vástago y una (2,56%) por inestabilidad. El seguimiento medio fue de 42 meses (rango 24-74). Resultados: El puntaje medio de Harris mejoró de 37 (rango 10-77) antes de la operación a 81 (rango 33-96) en el último seguimiento. Cuatro pacientes (10,2%) presentaron luxación, uno (2,5%) tuvo una infección profunda; otro (2,5%), una fractura intraoperatoria; en tres (7,6%) pacientes, se produjo un hundimiento y fue necesario revisar 2 (5,1%) implantes femorales. Conclusiones: Con el vástago cónico se han logrado resultados satisfactorios en 2-6 años de seguimiento, en varias condiciones de revisión femoral. Requiere de una técnica simple y reproducible, con una mejoría clínica ampliamente publicada. Nivel de Evidencia: IV
Introduction: Proximal bone loss at the femoral stem is the main challenge facing surgeons at the time of revision total hip arthroplasty. The aim of revision surgeries is to obtain a stable placement of components and to restore joint kinematics. Methods: Between 2010 and 2014, we evaluated 37 patients (39 hips) in whom non-cemented femoral stems were used (28 modular and 11 non-modular).The average age was 63.5 years. Study patients included 18 (48.64%) women and 19 (51.35%) men. Causes of reoperation included 14 (35.89%) cases of aseptic loosening, 14 (35.89%) infections, 7 (17.94%) periprosthetic fractures, 3 (7.69%) stem fractures and one (2.56%) for instability. Mean follow-up was 42 months (range 24-74). Results: The average Harris score improved from 37 (range 10-77) points before surgery to 81 points (range 33-96) at the last follow-up. Four patients (10.2%) presented dislocation, one (2.5%) suffered a deep infection, one (2.5%) had an intra-operative fracture; 3 (7.6%) patients presented subsidence and it was necessary to revise 2 (5.1%) femoral implants. Conclusions: Satisfactory results were obtained with the femoral stem in 2 to 6 years of follow-up in several conditions of femoral revision surgeries. It requires a simple and reproducible technique with clinical improvement that has been widely published in the literature. Level of Evidence: IV
Subject(s)
Adult , Middle Aged , Aged , Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip , Hip Joint/surgery , Reoperation , Follow-Up Studies , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
Introducción: La fractura periprotésica es la tercera causa más frecuente de revisión de cadera por detrás del aflojamiento aséptico y la infección. Aquellas que se presentan asociadas a un tallo flojo (B2) o a un déficit de capital óseo (B3) deben ser tratadas con la revisión femoral. Materiales y Métodos: Se estudiaron retrospectivamente 38 pacientes con fracturas periprotésicas de fémur de tipos B2 y B3 tratadas con tallos no cementados de fijación distal sin injerto óseo ni placas de osteosíntesis. El tiempo de seguimiento promedio fue de 2.5 años (rango 1.5-10). Resultados: El puntaje promedio en el Harris Hip Score fue 69 (rango 57-91). En todos los casos, se logró la consolidación ósea. La supervivencia libre de revisión fue del 94,8%. Las complicaciones fueron: un (2,6%) hundimiento del tallo >5 mm, una (2,6%) luxación, dos (5,2%) infecciones y un (2,6%) hematoma de la herida. Conclusión: La técnica de revisión con tallos no cementados de fijación distal sin el aporte de injerto óseo ha demostrado ser un método eficaz para tratar las fracturas periprotésicas de cadera de tipos B2 y B3.
Introduction: Periprosthetic hip fracture is the third most common cause of hip revision, behind aseptic loosening and infection. Fractures presenting in combination with a loose stem (B2) or poor bone stock (B3) should be revised. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 38 patients with type B2 and B3 periprosthetic hip fractures that had been treated with distal fixation cementless stem without bone graft or a plate. Follow-up averaged 2.5 years (range 1.5-10). Results: The mean postoperative Harris Hip Score was 69 points (range 57-91). Fracture consolidation was achieved in all patients. Implant survival at last follow-up was 94.8%. Complications were: one (2.6%) stem subsidence, one (2.6%) dislocation, two (5.2%) infections and one (2.6%) hematoma. Conclusion: Hip revision in the set of type B2 and B3 periprosthetic fracture with distal fixation cementless stem without bone graft is an effective technique.
Subject(s)
Humans , Periprosthetic Fractures , Hip Fractures/surgery , ReoperationABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To evaluate the results of revision total hip arthroplasty using a Wagner SL revision stem. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study reviewed 56 revisions of the femoral component performed using a Wagner stem in 55 patients between 1992 and 2001. The mean age of the patients at the time of the revision was 50 years. The mean follow up duration was 8.4 years (range, 5 to 12.5 years). The indication for revision was aseptic loosening in fifty-two hips, septic loosening in two and periprosthetic fractures in two. The pre-revisional femoral defects were classified according to the Paprosky classification system. A clinical evaluation and radiological assessment were performed. RESULTS: The mean Harris hip score improved from 47 points preoperatively to 87 points at the latest follow-up. There were 5, 20, 22 and 9 hips of type I, II, IIIA and IIIB according to the Paprosky classification system. Fifty two hips (93%) showed stable stems at the latest follow-up radiographs. The mean vertical subsidence of the stem was 6.2 mm (range, 0 to 21 mm). Severe progressive vertical subsidence in three hips and an infection in one occurred requiring repeat revision. CONCLUSION: For severe proximal femoral bone loss, the conical femoral revision stem with a fully grit-blasted surface produced satisfactory results with distal press-fit fixation. We can expect a decrease in the rate of mechanical failure rate of the stem by reducing the subsidence derived from the stem design itself.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to see the results of total hip arthroplasty revision using Wagner femoral revision stem. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From January 1994 and December 1998, we implanted to twenty-three Wagner revision stems in 22 patient (23 cases). The patients'average age was 54 years and the average follow-up time was 48 months. The causes of the revision were as follows: aseptic loosening (18 cases), periprosthetic fractures with loosening (4 cases), and septic loosening (1 case). RESULTS: The preoperative Harris hip score was 47 points, and this improved to 90.5 points postoperatively. There were 3 cases of inguinal pain, 2 cases of thigh pain, 3 cases of leg length discrepancy, and one case of subsidence of stem exceeding more than 5 mm. Postoperative complications included 2 cases of hip posterior dislocation, and 2 cases of heterotopic ossification. CONCLUSION: No patient required re-revision surgery to treat stem loosening or other problems. The results of the operations were excellent. However, we had difficulty selecting the optimal stem size with respect to preventing subsidence problems.