Rotational stability of different hip revision systems

M. Thomsen , E. Jakubowitz

Traumatology and Orthopedics of Russia ›› 2014, Vol. 20 ›› Issue (4) : 57 -61.

PDF
Traumatology and Orthopedics of Russia ›› 2014, Vol. 20 ›› Issue (4) : 57 -61. DOI: 10.21823/2311-2905-2014-0-4-57-61
Theoretical and experimental studies
other

Rotational stability of different hip revision systems

Author information +
History +
PDF

Abstract

The authors present an experimental investigation that compares the primary rotational fixation of 4 revision stems. Methods: Each stem was implanted into 4 synthetic femora. Micromotion of stem and bone was measured at defined sites under torque application. Femoral neck osteotomy and AAOS type I and III defects were simulated by reproducible saw lines. Results: Up to a type I defect, all implants are capable of bridging the substance loss in a rotationally stable manner. The relative movements show a dependence both on the bone defect and on implant design. Even within the basic design types clear differences (p

Cite this article

Download citation ▾
M. Thomsen, E. Jakubowitz. Rotational stability of different hip revision systems. Traumatology and Orthopedics of Russia, 2014, 20(4): 57-61 DOI:10.21823/2311-2905-2014-0-4-57-61

登录浏览全文

4963

注册一个新账户 忘记密码

References

[1]

Chandler HP, Ayres DK, Tan RC. et al. Revision total hip replacement using the S-ROM femoral component. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1995; 319:130-140.

[2]

Gebauer D, Refior HJ, Haake M. Micromotions in the primary fixation of cementless femoral stem prostheses. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1989; 108:300-307.

[3]

Görtz W, Nägerl UV, Nägerl H, Thomsen M. Spatial micromovements of uncemented femoral components after torsional loads. J Biomech Eng. 2002; 124:706-713.

[4]

Jakubowitz E, Seeger JB, Lee C, Heisel C, Kretzer J, Thomsen M. Primary rotational stability of cylindrical and conical revision hip stems as a function of femoral bone defects: An in vitro comparison. J Biomech. 2008; 41(14):3078-3084.

[5]

Jakubowitz E, Kinkel S, Nadorf J, Heisel C, Kretzer JP, Thomsen M. The effect of multifilaments and monofilaments on cementless femoral revision hip components: an experimental study. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2011 ;26(3):257-261.

[6]

Mumme T, Muller-Rath R, Weisskopf M. et al. The cement- free modular revision prosthesis MRP-hip revision stem prosthesis in clinical follow-up. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb. 2004; 142:314-321.

[7]

Ohl MD, Whiteside LA, McCarthy DS, White SE. Torsional fixation of a modular femoral hip component. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1993; 287:135-141.

[8]

Schuh A, Werber S, Holzwarth U, Zeiler G. Cementless modular hip revision arthroplasty using the MRP Titan revision stem: Outcome of 79 hips after an average of 4 years’ follow-up. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2004; 124:306-309.

[9]

Sugiyama H, Whiteside LA, Engh CA. Torsional fixation of the femoral component in total hip arthroplasty. The effect of surgical press-fit technique. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1992; 275:187-193.

[10]

Thomsen M, Aldinger P, Gortz W. et al. The importance to generate robot-assisted milled cavities for total hip replacement. A comparative experimental study: manual versus robotic preparation. Unfallchirurg. 2001; 104: 692-699.

[11]

Thomsen M, Gortz W, Nagerl H. Charakterisierung moderner Huftendoprothesen. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb. 1999; 137:A32.

[12]

Thomsen M, Kretzer JP, Heisel C , Lee C, Nadorf J, Jakubowitz E. Femorale Revisionsprothesen - Eine Analyse der Verankerung. Orthopäde. 2010; 39:623-630.

[13]

Thomsen M, Lee C. In-vitro rotational stability of cemented stem designs. In: Breusch SJ, Malchau H. (eds). The wellcemented total hip arthroplasty. Theory and practice. 1st ed. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer; 2005. p. 196-205.

[14]

Thomsen MN, Breusch SJ, Aldinger PR. et al. Roboticallymilled bone cavities: a comparison with hand-broaching in different types of cementless hip stems. Acta Orthop Scand. 2002; 73:379-385.

[15]

Wagner H, Wagner M. Konische Schaftverankerung zementfreier Huftprothesen - Primarimplantation und Prothesenwechsel. In: Morscher EW. (ed). Endoprothetik. 1st ed. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer; 1995. p. 278-288.

[16]

Wagner H. Femur revision prosthesis. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb. 1993; 131:574-577.

[17]

Warren PJ, Thompson M, Fletcher MD. Transfemoral implantation of the Wagner SL stem. The abolition of subsidence and enhancement of osteotomy union rate using Dall-Miles cables. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2002; 122:557-560.

[18]

Wirtz DC, Heller KD, Holzwarth U. et al. A modular femoral implant for uncemented stem revision THR. Int Orthop. 2000; 24:134-138.

[19]

Wirtz DC. Modulare Schaftimplantate: Klinische Ergebnisse der MRP-Titanprothese. In: Thumler P, Forst R, Zeiler G. (eds). Modulare Revisionsendoprothetik des Huftgelenks. 1st ed. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer; 2005. p. 271-281.

AI Summary AI Mindmap
PDF

60

Accesses

0

Citation

Detail

Sections
Recommended

AI思维导图

/