Femoral revision with a primary cementless stem

Gastaud, Olivier; Cambas, P.-M.; Tabutin, J.

doi:10.1016/j.otsr.2015.12.014

Cited by 18 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As pointed out by Gastaud et al 36 , these situations emphasize the importance of accurate patient selection. We share their observation that patient selection hinges on meticulous evaluation of bone deficiency; however, we differ in the opinion that cortical fenestration does not affect good surgical outcome.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 88%

Primary cementless stems in septic hip revision: Indications and results

Cavagnaro

Chiarlone

Divano

et al. 2019

J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The aim of our work is to evaluate results obtained from a cohort of patients affected by periprosthetic joint infection and treated with a primary cementless stem in a two-stage technique framework. Methods: Eighty-four patients were evaluated at a mean follow-up of 37.4 months. The main demographic, surgical, clinical, and radiographic data were recorded. A femoral window for stem removal was performed in 33 patients. Results: Statistically significant improvement was noted for both the Harris Hip score and the Oxford Hip score. Postsurgical complications included thigh pain in three patients, subsidence (>2 mm) in one patient, implant dislocation in two patients, cup revision in one patient, implant revision for septic failure in two patients, and stem revision for varus position in one patient. The stem survivorship rate was 96.3%. There were no significant differences between the groups in which a cortical window was created or not. Conclusion: Femoral stem revision with primary cementless stems is a viable option in selected patients undergoing two-stage hip revision surgery. Correct indication is a cornerstone of good outcome. The use of a cortical window does not affect the final outcome or implant survivorship rate.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 88%

Primary cementless stems in septic hip revision: Indications and results

Cavagnaro

Chiarlone

Divano

et al. 2019

J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are several reports on various cementless primary THA stems used in femoral stem revision [ 5 , 7 – 13 ], but not on the use of the Wagner cone prosthesis. This study aimed to evaluate the long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of femoral stem revision using the Wagner cone prosthesis in femoral stem revision.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Long-term outcomes of cementless femoral stem revision with the Wagner cone prosthesis

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The procedure of femoral stem revision is challenging, and bone conservation with less stress shielding is a mandatory effort in these cases. Although there are several reports of stem revision with stems designed for primary total hip arthroplasty (THA), there is no report on stem revision with the Wagner cone prosthesis. Methods Between 1996 and 2008, 41 hips of 41 consecutive patients were subjected to femoral revision THA using the Wagner cone prosthesis. The mean age during revision surgery was 56.1 years, and the mean follow-up period was 14.8 years. The clinical results were evaluated, and the femoral component was assessed radiologically. Results The results showed that the average period from the first operation to revision THA was 8.0 years. Additionally, the mean Harris hip score improved from 52 points preoperatively to 83 points at the final follow-up. All stems showed bone integration in the radiological evaluation. A subsidence of more than 5 mm was observed in 3 out of 28 (10.7%) femoral stems. Two patients needed an acetabular revision for acetabular cup loosening during the follow-up period. Furthermore, one patient had recurrent dislocation and had to undergo revision surgery for soft tissue augmentation. Conclusions We achieved favorable clinical and radiological long-term outcomes in femoral stem revision using the Wagner cone prosthesis. This cementless femoral stem could be an option for femoral stem revision in cases with relatively good bone stock.

show abstract

“…The stiffness of titanium implants is more similar to that of bone compared with stainless-steel alloys, and titanium exhibits better bone ingrowth properties compared with cobaltchromium implants [23]. The use of primary cementless stems in revision surgery is controversial, and only a few studies can be found [24]. Nevertheless, if the bone quality is good and there is no substantial osteolysis, then the use of a primary cementless stem can be a good option.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nevertheless, if the bone quality is good and there is no substantial osteolysis, then the use of a primary cementless stem can be a good option. Using a primary cementless stem in revision arthroplasty can prevent treatment escalation without limiting future implant selection and has been encouraged previously by some authors [24,25].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intraoperative complications in total hip arthroplasty using a new cementless femoral implant (SP-CL®)

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Considering the excellent results already achieved in total hip arthroplasty (THA), new implants must be at least as safe as currently used implants and lead to longer survival. A new cementless femoral stem, SP-CL ® , has been introduced. The aim of this study is to evaluate intraoperative complications and assess the risk factors of THA with the SP-CL ® implant. Materials and methods: All THA patients who were operated on using the SP-CL ® (LINK, Hamburg, Germany) implant between 2015 and 2018 were included in the analysis. Data were collected from medical records from national and hospital electronic databases. Radiological measurements were made from standard pre-and postoperative radiographs. Results: A total of 222 THA were performed using the SP-CL ® implant. The average age of the patients was 56 years (14-77 years). There were 1 transient sciatic nerve injury, 1 acetabular fracture, and 11 (5.0%) intraoperative femoral fractures (IFF), of which 7 were treated with cerclage wire or titanium band during the operation while the other fractures were treated conservatively. None of the IFF patients were revised due to fracture during the follow-up period (one revision due to infection). The radiographic morphology of proximal femur was associated with increased risk of IFF (p = 0.02). Conclusions: The results of the current study demonstrate a 5% incidence of IFF when using the LINK SP-CL ® femoral stem in THA. The radiographic morphology of the proximal femur was an important predictor of IFF and should be assessed when using SP-CL ® .

show abstract

Femoral revision with a primary cementless stem

Abstract: Retrospective study, level 4.

Cited by 18 publications

References 22 publications

Primary cementless stems in septic hip revision: Indications and results

Primary cementless stems in septic hip revision: Indications and results

Long-term outcomes of cementless femoral stem revision with the Wagner cone prosthesis

Intraoperative complications in total hip arthroplasty using a new cementless femoral implant (SP-CL®)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About