Management of severe femoral bone defect in revision total hip arthroplasty-A 236 hip, 6-14-year follow-up study

Abstract

This study evaluated the clinical effect of impaction bone graft and distal press-fit fixation for the reconstruction of severe femoral bone defect in revision total hip arthroplasty. A total of 234 patients (involving 236 hips) with Paprosky III and IV femoral bone defects were treated with the revision total hip arthroplasty from June 1998 to Aug. 2006. Impaction bone graft technique was used for 112 hips, with allogeneic freeze-dried bone as bone graft and SPII as prosthesis. With 124 hips, modular distal press-fit fixation and tapered femoral stem (MP stem) were employed. After the operation, the subjects were followed up on regular basis and results were assessed by using the Harris Hip Score (HHS) and 12-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12). Radiolucence, subsidence and loosening were observed and complications, including infection, fracture, dislocation etc. were recorded. A 6–14-year follow-up showed that prostheses failed, due to infection, in 4 patients of impaction bone graft group and that 6 patients in the press-fit fixation group experienced prosthesis failure, with the survival rates for the two techniques being 96.43% and 95.16%, respectively. One-way ANOVA showed that prosthesis survival was significantly associated with surgery-related complications (P<0.05) and was not related to the type of the bone defects (P>0.05). The rate of complications bore significant association with the type of bone defects in the two groups (P<0.05). Our study showed that the two revision methods could achieve satisfactory mid-term and long-term results for the reconstruction of severe bone defects. It is of great significance for attaining high prosthesis survival rate to select suitable operation on the basis of the type of bone defect. Careful operative manipulation and post-operative rehabilitation aimed at reducing complications are also important.

Keywords

revision total hip arthroplasty / bone defects / press-fit fixation

References

[1] WangY. Current trends in revision of total hip arthroplasty and its present status in China. Zhonghua Waike Zazhi (Chinese), 2012, 50(5): 385-388

[2] KurtzS, OngK, LauE, et al.. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2007, 89(4): 780-785

[3] OrnsteinE, LinderL, RanstamJ, et al.. Femoral impaction bone grafting with the Exeter stem-the Swedish experience: survivorship analysis of 1305 revisions performed between 1989 and 2002. J Bone Joint Surg Br, 2009, 91(4): 441-446

[4] HallidayBR, EnglishHW, TimperleyAJ, et al.. Femoral impaction grafting with cement in revision total hip replacement. Evolution of the technique and results. J Bone Joint Surg Br, 2003, 85(6): 809-817

[5] MahoneyCR, FehringerEV, KopjarB, et al.. Femoral revision with impaction grafting and a collarless, polished, tapered stem. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2005, 432: 181-187

[6] WraightePJ, HowardPW. Femoral impaction bone allografting with an Exeter cemented collarless, polished, tapered stem in revision hip replacement: a mean follow-up of 10.5 years. J Bone Joint Surg Br, 2008, 90(8): 1000-1004

[7] BöhmP, BischelO. Femoral revision with the Wagner SL revision stem: evaluation of one hundred and twenty-nine revisions followed for a mean of 4.8 years. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2001, 83-A(7): 1023-1031

[8] KwongLM, MillerAJ, LubinusP. A modular distal fixation option for proximal bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty: a 2- to 6-year follow-up study. J Arthroplasty, 2003, 18(3Suppl1): 94-97

[9] McInnisDP, HorneG, DevanePA. Femoral revision with a fluted, tapered, modular stem seventy patients followed for a mean of 3.9 years. J Arthroplasty, 2006, 21(3): 372-380

[10] ParkYS, MoonYW, LimSJ. Revision total hip arthroplasty using a fluted and tapered modular distal fixation stem with and without extended trochanteric osteotomy. J Arthroplasty, 2007, 22(7): 993-999

[11] WeissRJ, BeckmanMO, EnocsonA, et al.. Minimum 5-year follow-up of a cementless, modular, tapered stem in hip revision arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty, 2011, 26(1): 16-23

[12] OvesenO, EmmeluthC, HofbauerC, et al.. Revision total hip arthroplasty using a modular tapered stem with distal fixation: good short-term results in 125 revisions. J Arthroplasty, 2010, 25(3): 348-354

[13] GieGA, LinderL, LingRSM, et al.. Impacted cancellous allografts and cement for total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br, 1993, 75-B(1): 14-21

[14] LieSA, HavelinLI, FurnesON, et al.. Failure rates for 4762 revision total hip arthroplasties in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. J Bone Joint Surg Br, 2004, 86B(4): 504-509

[15] KoterG, WaldeTA, WillertHG. Five- to 10-year results using a noncemented modular revision stem without bone grafting. J Arthroplasty, 2008, 23(7): 964-970

[16] RodriguezJA, FadaR, MurphySB, et al.. Two-year to five-year follow-up of femoral defects in femoral revision treated with the link MP modular stem. J Arthroplasty, 2009, 24(5): 751-758

[17] KangMN, HuddlestonJI, HwangK, et al.. Early outcome of a modular femoral component in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty, 2008, 23(2): 220-225

[18] LiNX, LiuDP, LiuCJ. Evaluation of SF-12 in the resident of Chengdu city. Sichuan Daxue Xuebao [Med Sci] (Chinese), 2010, 41(6): 1044-1046

[19] WangY, ZhouYG. Management of the bone defects in revision total hip arthroplasty. Zhonghua Waike Zazhi (Chinese), 2005, 43(20): 1309-1312

[20] ZhouYG, WangY. Impaction bone grafting in THA revision with freeze dried allograft and anatomic ce-mented femoral stem. Zhongguo Jiaoxing Waike Zazhi (Chinese), 2007, 15(7): 507-509

[21] van DDS, BumaP, SlooffTJ, et al.. Incorporation of morselized bone grafts: a study of 24 acetabular biopsy specimens. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2002131-141

[22] SchreursBW, ArtsJJ, VerdonschotN, et al.. Femoral component revision with use of impaction bone-grafting and a cemented polished stem. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2005, 87(11): 2499-2507

[23] OakesDA, CabanelaME. Impaction bone grafting for revision hip arthroplasty: biology and clinical applications. J Am Acad Orthop Surg, 2006, 14(11): 620-628

[24] BrewsterNT, GillespieWJ, HowieCR. Mechanical considerations in impaction bone grafting. J Bone Joint Surg Br, 1999, 81(1): 118-123

[25] Van der DonkS, WeernickT, BumaP, et al.. Rinsing morselized allografts improves bone and tissue ingrowth. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2003, 408: 302-308

[26] ZhangQ, WangY, ZhouYG, et al.. Femoral revision with a distal tapered modular stem. Zhonghua Guanjie Waike Zazhi (Chinese), 2008, 5: 511-515