Dataset Information

Revision of a Fractured Titanium Modular Revision Hip Stem Without Removal of the Well-Fixed Part of the Stem: A New Approach Using a Cemented Tube.

ABSTRACT: Component fracture is a rare cause for revision in total hip arthroplasty. For a fractured well-fixed long femoral stem, the options are limited. We sought to develop a technique to address this problem with lower morbidity. A newly developed cemented tube was constructed and cemented onto a fractured Revitan revision hip femoral stem to retain the distal well-fixed component. At the 2-year follow-up, the Harris Hip Score, pain level, and radiographic images were analyzed. At the 2-year follow-up, no radiological signs of loosening or failure could be observed. The patient's preoperative Harris Hip Score improved from 42.8 to 97 points. The pain level improved from 7/10 to 0/10. Our case report depicts excellent clinical and radiographic outcomes at 2-year follow-up by a newly developed cemented tube technique. This technique is a potential new option for revision of fractured well-fixed diaphyseal stems without major bone loss. Our successful results suggest this technique is worthy of consideration and further study.

SUBMITTER: Graulich TJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7298535 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Revision of a Fractured Titanium Modular Revision Hip Stem Without Removal of the Well-Fixed Part of the Stem: A New Approach Using a Cemented Tube.

Graulich Tilman Johannes TJ Graeff Pascal P Heidenblut Thorsten T Krettek Christian C Liodakis Emmanouil E

Arthroplasty today 20200613 3

Component fracture is a rare cause for revision in total hip arthroplasty. For a fractured well-fixed long femoral stem, the options are limited. We sought to develop a technique to address this problem with lower morbidity. A newly developed cemented tube was constructed and cemented onto a fractured Revitan revision hip femoral stem to retain the distal well-fixed component. At the 2-year follow-up, the Harris Hip Score, pain level, and radiographic images were analyzed. At the 2-year follow-u ...[more]

PMID: 32566718

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTotal hip arthroplasty (THA) is estimated to grow in the following decades with a consequent increase of THA revisions (rTHA). This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare modular and monoblock stem in rTHA surgery, focusing on clinical and radiological outcomes and complication rates.MethodsA literature search was performed using the following search strategy: ((Modular stem) OR (monolithic stem)) AND (hip review) on PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (OS) compared clinical and radiological outcomes, and complication rates for monoblock and modular revision femoral stem were included. The risk of bias was assessed through the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) score. The Review Manager (RevMan) software was used for the meta-analysis. The rate of complications was assessed using odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).ResultsThe authors included 11 OS and one RCT with 3,671 participants (mean age: 68.4 years old). The mean follow-up was 46.9 months. There was no prevalence of subsidence for one type of stem. Mean subsidence was from 0.92 to 10 mm for modular stem and from 1 to 15 mm for monoblock stem. Postoperative Harris Hip Score (HHS) showed better results with modular stems without statistical significance [mean difference (MD) =1.32; 95% CI: -1.62 to 4.27; P=0.38]. No statistically significant difference was found for dislocations (OR =2.48; 95% CI: 0.67 to 9.14; P=0.17), infections (OR =1.07; 95% CI: 0.51 to 2.23; P=0.86), intraoperative fractures (OR =1.62; 95% CI: 0.42 to 6.21; P=0.48), and postoperative fractures (OR =1.60; 95% CI: 0.55 to 4.64; P=0.39).ConclusionsModular and monoblock stems show comparable and satisfactory clinical and radiological outcomes for rTHA. Both stems are valid and effective options for managing femoral bone deficit in hip revision surgery. The main limitation of this study is the small number and low quality of enclosed studies that compared the two stems. Moreover, the modular stem is usually used for more complex cases with lower quality femoral bone stock.

Project description:ImportanceConsensus guidelines and systematic reviews have suggested that cemented fixation is more effective than uncemented fixation in hemiarthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures. Given that these recommendations are based on research performed outside the United States, it is uncertain whether these findings also reflect the US experience.ObjectiveTo compare the outcomes associated with cemented vs uncemented hemiarthroplasty in a large US integrated health care system.Design, setting, and participantsRetrospective cohort study of 12 491 patients aged 60 years and older who underwent hemiarthroplasty treatment of a hip fracture between 2009 and 2017 at 1 of the 36 hospitals owned by Kaiser Permanente, a large US health maintenance organization. Patients were followed up until membership termination, death, or the study end date of December 31, 2017.ExposuresHemiarthroplasty (prosthetic replacement of the femoral head) fixation via bony growth into a porous-coated implant (uncemented) or with cement.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome measure was aseptic revision, defined as any reoperation performed after the index procedure involving exchange of the existing implant for reasons other than infection. Secondary outcomes were mortality (in-hospital, postdischarge, and overall), 90-day medical complications, 90-day emergency department visits, and 90-day unplanned readmissions.ResultsAmong 12 491 patients in the study cohort who underwent hemiarthroplasty for hip fracture (median age, 83 years; 8660 women [69.3%]), 6042 (48.4%) had undergone uncemented fixation and 6449 (51.6%) had undergone cemented fixation, and the median length of follow-up was 3.8 years. In the multivariable regression analysis controlling for confounders, uncemented fixation was associated with a significantly higher risk of aseptic revision (cumulative incidence at 1 year after operation, 3.0% vs 1.3%; absolute difference, 1.7% [95% CI, 1.1%-2.2%]; hazard ratio [HR], 1.77 [95% CI, 1.43-2.19]; P < .001). Of the 6 prespecified secondary end points, none showed a statistically significant difference between groups, including in-hospital mortality (1.7% for uncemented fixation vs 2.0% for cemented fixation; HR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.73-1.21]; P = .61) and overall mortality (cumulative incidence at 1 year after operation: 20.0% for uncemented fixation vs 22.8% for cemented fixation; HR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.90-1.01]; P = .08).Conclusions and relevanceAmong patients with hip fracture treated with hemiarthroplasty in a large US integrated health care system, uncemented fixation, compared with cemented fixation, was associated with a statistically significantly higher risk of aseptic revision. These findings suggest that US surgeons should consider cemented fixation in the hemiarthroplasty treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures in the absence of contraindications.

Dataset Information

Revision of a Fractured Titanium Modular Revision Hip Stem Without Removal of the Well-Fixed Part of the Stem: A New Approach Using a Cemented Tube.

Publications

Revision of a Fractured Titanium Modular Revision Hip Stem Without Removal of the Well-Fixed Part of the Stem: A New Approach Using a Cemented Tube.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets