header advert
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

FEMORAL COMPONENT REVISION USING A WAGNER DIAPHYSEAL FIXATION STEM



Abstract

Introduction and Objectives: Severe proximal femoral defects are a major problem in femoral stem revision surgery. Various surgical techniques have been described that aim to resolve the deficit of bone stock: the Exeter technique or impacted allograft bone, long porous surface distal fitting stems, stems coated with hydroxyapa-tite, and modular stems with metaphyseal fixation. In 1987, Wagner presented a revision technique using a long distal fitting conical stem with excellent proximal bone regeneration. However, the Wagner stem presents two fundamental problems: subsidence and dislocation. Furthermore, it is a demanding technique that requires preoperative planning. Conical fixation makes adjustment of length and anteversion more difficult, as it is dif-ficult to change these parameters after impaction.

Materials and Methods: This is a retrospective study of the first 86 Wagner prostheses implanted at our centre.

Results: The reason for revision was aseptic loosening in 81.8% of cases. A morselised bone graft was used in the femur in 22% of cases. Average follow-up period was 6.5 years. Complications occurred in 33% of cases. Half of these complications were perioperative fractures of the femur, which for the most part required no additional treatment besides intervention during the operation. Of the 6.8% of implants that were loose, only 3 cases required surgical treatment. Subsidence occurred in 40.9% of implants, with a median of 13.5mm. Of the 40.9% of implants that sank, two-thirds sank more than 0.5cm. Average metal-bone contact was 27.57mm postoperatively, 39.9mm at one year postoperatively, and 50.38mm at final evaluation.

Discussion and Conclusions: The Wagner prosthesis has yielded good results in revisions with proximal bone defects. However, it presents a high rate of dislocation and subsidence, in relation to the technical demands of the procedure.

The abstracts were prepared by Dr. E. Carlos Rodríguez-Merchán, Editor-in-Chief of the Spanish Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology (Revista de Ortopedia y Traumatología). Correspondence should be sent to him at Sociedad Española de Cirugía Ortopédica y Traumatología (SECOT), Calle Fernández de los Ríos, 108, 28015-Madrid, Spain