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.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Graulich TJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7298535 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:An 81-year-old woman presented with progressive groin pain after metal-on-polyethylene total hip arthroplasty with a modular neck stem and was found to have adverse local tissue reaction. As we report for the first time with this implant, we observed titanium neck-titanium stem taper corrosion intraoperatively. We also found head-neck taper corrosion. The patient underwent revision surgery to a modular fluted tapered stem with ceramic head and was asymptomatic at 3-year follow-up visit. In conclusion, consideration should be given to avoiding the routine use of this modular neck stem in total hip arthroplasty. Patients with this prosthesis should be closely monitored for adverse local tissue reaction.
| S-EPMC6588719 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Consensus regarding femoral stem fixation options in revision total knee arthroplasty remains controversial. Tapered, modular, fluted titanium (TMFT) stems have an excellent track record in total hip arthroplasty for their ability to provide axial and rotational stability in situations of compromised host bone. We present 3 successfully treated cases in which the Food & Drug Administration granted permission to use custom TMFT stems in situations of failed femoral fixation in multiple revised knees. These stems hold promise to achieve stable fixation in revision total knee arthroplasty where host metadiaphyseal bone is deficient. Implant manufactures should consider dedicating future resources to create adapters that can link existing successful TMFT stems currently used in hip arthroplasty to revision total knee components when host bone is severely compromised.
| S-EPMC5859738 | biostudies-literature
Project description:There is an increasing trend towards cementless modular femoral prostheses for revision hip replacement surgery, especially in patients with severe proximal femoral bone defects. However, for minor femoral bone defects, the benefit of cementless modular is not clear. We designed a retrospective cross-sectional study to compare outcomes of the two femoral implant designs. There were no significant differences in terms of visual analog pain scores, Harris hip scores, femoral bone restoration, stem subsidence, leg length correction, or overall complication rate. Three femoral reoperations (11%) occurred in the cemented group, and two (9%) in the cementless modular group. One femoral stem re-revised (4%) in the cemented group due to recurrent deep infection. Five-year survival for femoral reoperation was 88.2% for patients with the cemented implant and 91.3% for cementless group. Both groups had good clinical and radiological outcomes for femoral revision in patients with minor femoral bone defects during medium-term follow-up.
| S-EPMC3786300 | biostudies-other
Project description:Titanium (Ti) alloys have been proven to be one of the most suitable materials for orthopaedic implants. Dual modular stems have been introduced to primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) to enable better control of the femoral offset, leg length, and hip stability. This systematic review highlights information acquired for dual modular Ti stem complications published in the last 12 years and offers a conclusive discussion of the gathered knowledge. Articles referring to dual modular stem usage, survivorship, and complications in English were searched from 2009 to the present day. A qualitative synthesis of literature was carried out, excluding articles referring solely to other types of junctions or problems with cobalt-chromium alloys in detail. In total, 515 records were identified through database searching and 78 journal articles or conference proceedings were found. The reasons for a modular neck fracture of a Ti alloy are multifactorial. Even though dual modular stems have not shown any clinical benefits for patients and have been associated with worse results regarding durability than monolithic stems, some designs are still marketed worldwide. Orthopaedic surgeons should use Ti6Al4V dual modular stem designs for primary THA in special cases only.
| S-EPMC8200202 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWe evaluated the early outcomes, including all-cause revisions, aseptic revisions, and reoperations after revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) using a single modern modular femoral stem design.MethodsA retrospective cohort study on a consecutive series of 62 patients (65 hips) who underwent revision THA with a modern modular femoral stem system, between January 2011 and October 2015, at a single academic medical center was performed. A cumulative incidence competing risk model was used to evaluate the cumulative incidence of failure with death as the competing risk.ResultsThe cumulative incidence rate of all-cause revision THA was 14.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 6%-24%) at 2 years when accounting for the competing risk of death. The rate of aseptic revisions was 6.8% (95% CI, 0.1%-13%), and the rate of all-cause reoperations was 21.6% (95% CI, 11%-31%). Ten THA cases (15%) underwent re-revision THA for any reason: five for infection and five for aseptic failures. The mean time to re-revision was 1 year (range, 0.04-5.34). Patients with a preoperative Mallory classification of 3 or more were at greater risk for reoperation (sub-hazard rate, 3.84; 95% CI, 1.54-9.53; P = .004).ConclusionsAlthough the high incidence of reoperation illustrates the complexity of the revision THA population, particularly related to infection and joint instability, the relatively low rate of aseptic failures, minimal radiographic subsidence, and the lack of modular junctional failures suggest that the use of this modular revision THA system may provide adequate fixation and could be considered as a viable treatment option in the setting of revision THA.
| S-EPMC6470366 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRemoval of a well-fixed, cemented acetabular component at the time of revision hip surgery can be complex. It is essential to remove the implant and cement mantle in a timely fashion while preserving bone stock and osseous integrity. The biomechanical properties of polymethylmethacrylate cement and polyethylene can be utilised to aid with the removal of well cemented implants which are often harder than the surrounding bone. While removal of loose components may be relatively straightforward, the challenge for the revision arthroplasty surgeon often involves the removal of well-fixed implants. Here, we present three established techniques for the removal of a well-fixed cemented acetabular component and one novel modification we have described before.MethodWe collate and review four techniques for removing well-fixed cemented acetabular implants that utilise the different biomechanical properties of bone cement and polyethylene. These techniques are illustrated with a photographic series utilising saw bones. A step-by-step approach to our new technique is shown in photographs, both in the clinical setting and with a "Sawbone". This is accompanied by a clinical video that details the surgical technique in its entirety.ResultsThese techniques utilise different biomechanical principles to extract the acetabular component. Each technique has advantages and disadvantages. Our new technique is a simplification of a previously published extraction manoeuvre that utilises tensile force between cement and the implant to remove the polyethylene cup. This is a safe and reproducible technique in patients with a well-fixed cemented acetabular implant.ConclusionUnderstanding the biomechanical properties of polymethylmethacrylate bone cement and polyethylene can aid in the safe removal of a well-fixed cemented acetabular component in revision hip surgery. The optimal technique for removal of a cemented acetabular component varies depending on a number of patient and implant factors. This summary of the available techniques will be of interest to revision arthroplasty surgeons.
| S-EPMC5889699 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC7078801 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatients who undergo massive femoral malignant tumor (MFMT) resection often exhibit shortened femoral metaphyseal juxta-articular segments. The use of a customized femoral endoprosthesis (CFE) with an intra-neck curved stem (INCS) has emerged as a viable reconstructive surgical strategy for these individuals. Relative to a cemented INCS, it remains unclear as to whether cementless INCS use is associated with improvements in functionality or reconstructive longevity. As such, the present study was conducted to compare functional outcomes, endoprosthetic survival, and endoprosthesis-related complication rates in patients undergoing cemented and cementless INCS implantation.MethodsA total of 24 patients undergoing lower limb salvage and reconstructive surgical procedures utilizing cemented or cementless INCS endoprostheses were retrospectively included. Patient-functional outcomes, endoprosthetic survival, and complication rates were compared as a function of age; diagnosis; the length of femoral resection; residual proximal femur length; Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) scores; visual analog scale (VAS) scores; and the rates of implant breakage, periprosthetic infections, periprosthetic fractures, and aseptic loosening.ResultsThe mean follow-up was 56 months. Significant differences in the length of femoral resection (p<0.001) and residual proximal femur length were observed (p<0.001) between the cemented and cementless INCS groups. There were no differences in overall patient survival and aseptic loosening-associated endoprosthesis survival in the cemented and cementless groups. None of the included patients experienced periprosthetic fractures, infections, or implant breakage. Average respective MSTS and VAS scores did not differ between groups.ConclusionFor patients undergoing treatment for MFMTs, the use of a CFE with an INCS has emerged as a viable approach to hip-preserving reconstructive surgery. With appropriately designed individualized rehabilitative programs, good functional outcomes can be achieved for these endoprostheses, which are associated with low complication rates. Moreover, the selection between cemented or cementless INCS in the clinic should be made based on patient-specific factors, with cementless INCS implementation being preferable in younger patients with good-quality bone, the potential for long-term survival, and the osteotomy site near the lesser trochanter, whereas cemented INCS use should be favored for individuals who are older, have a shorter life expectancy, or have poor bone quality.
| S-EPMC9483172 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundModular stems are widely used in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) with aseptic loosening being a common reason for revision. Despite the good results reported on the use of modular stem designs, there are only few studies focusing on aseptic revisions and few studies on a hexagonal stem design. The goal of this study is to determine stem survival, clinical and functional outcome along with possible risk factors for implant failure in aseptic revision THA.MethodsWe retrospectively identified 53 patients with aseptic THA revision using a modular hexagonal stem with a minimum follow-up of two years. Femoral bone loss, radiographic and clinical outcomes as well as function measured using the Harris Hip Score (HHS) was assessed. Patients' previous medical history was analyzed for comorbidities and the body mass index. Stem survival was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Possible risk factors for implant failure were analyzed using the log-rank test. The median age at revision was 69 (IQR 62-73) with a median follow up of 74 months.ResultsImplant survival rates amounted to 90.4% at 3 and 5 years. The median HHS improved by 47 points (34 (IQR 22-47) vs 81 (IQR 59-90) p<0.001). There was a reduced implant survival after 5 years when the revision stem was used following a previous cemented stem (83.4% vs 100%, p = 0.04).ConclusionA modular, hexagonal stem can be successfully used in aseptic revision THA with remarkable functional results and excellent survivorship. Revision of a cemented stem using this implant might result in reduced survival which must be considered when planning treatment.
| S-EPMC7310743 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Purpose The aim of this study was to report our experience with eyes that presented with an initial GDD exposure and their subsequent outcome in terms of re-exposure. Methods A retrospective review of charts of 42 patients (43 eyes) who presented with a GDD exposure during the period 2008–2015 in a tertiary eye care center was performed. Demographic data, past ocular history, pre-operative and post-operative information including the surgical technique of GDD surgery and exposure repair were recorded. The patients were followed for further exposure to the date of the last follow-up clinic visit. For each type of repair technique, details were collected on risk and timing of GDD exposure. The baseline features of eyes that had further exposure after initial exposure were compared to eyes without further exposure. Results Forty-three eyes were identified which had repair after an initial exposure. The mean ± SD age was 54 ± 27 years. Of the GDDs, Ahmed FP7 was performed in 31 eyes, Ahmed FP8 in two eyes, Ahmed S2 in five eyes, Krupin valve in two eyes and Baerveldt 350 GDD in three eyes. The methods of repair and the relative risk [95% CI] of re-exposure were: conjunctival closure only (n=4; RR=2.10 [0.84–5.23]); repair with patch graft and conjunctival repair (n=18), RR=1.24 [0.51–3.01]; tube repositioning, use of patch graft and conjunctival repair (n=14), RR=1.0; tube removal with replacement in a different quadrant, patch graft and conjunctival repair (n=3), RR=1.87 [0.64–5.48]. After the first exposure, 18 eyes had a second re-exposure, four eyes had a third re-exposure, and 1 eye had a fourth exposure. Conclusions The GDD exposure rates at our institution are consistent with other reports. Lack of a patch graft for repair is associated with a two-fold risk of subsequent re-exposure.
| S-EPMC7537842 | biostudies-literature