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

REVISION THA USING A NON-CEMENTED, DOUBLE TREADED, CONE SHAPED, MODULAR FEMORAL COMPONENT



Abstract

Introduction and Aims: The incidence and technical complexity of revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) has and will continue to increase dramatically. We report the results of revision THA using a non-cemented, dual threaded, cone shaped, (DTCS) modular femoral component.

Method: Between June of 1999 and July of 2003, 41 revision THAs using a DTCS modular femoral component. Fifty-four percent of the patients were male and 46% were female with an average weight of 84kg (std dev: 30kg, range 57–60 kg), an average height of 170cm (sdt dev: 9cm, range: 155–182 cm) and an average body mass index (BMI) of 26 (std dev: 4, range: 18–31). The average patient age was 71 years (std dev: 12 years, range: 39–85 years).

Results: The average patient follow-up was 16 months (range 6–49 months). The average Harris hip score (HHS) at the most recent time to follow-up was 76. Broken into the HHS component parts, the average pain score was 40 of a possible 44, average motion was nine of a possible nine, and average function was 28 of a possible 47. Radiographic evaluation revealed wellfixed and positioned components with evidence of bone densing in areas in intimate contact with the DTCS component. Radiographic evidence of minor stress shielding was observed in the greater trochanter (Gruen Zone 1) and the proximal calcar/neck cut region (Gruen Zone 7). Post-operative complications included recurrent infection in four (10%), subsequently resolved with IV antibiotics; dislocation in three (7%), successfully treated by closed reduction and protective bracing; aseptic loosening in one (2%), with femoral component revision to a larger size; intra-operative periprosthetic fracture in one (2%), treated with ORIF (bone, plate and screws); and a non-union of a pre-revision fracture with subsequent component loosening in one (2%). Regardless of the degree of femoral deficiency, there was no incidence of component disassociation or component fracture.

Conclusion: Revision THA is a demanding undertaking and involves multivariate technical challenges that may include mechanical and material considerations such as prosthetic loosening, prosthetic and periprosthetic fracture. We show that the use of a DTCS modular femoral component affords the surgeon results equal to those reported for revision THA and allows intra-operative versatility independent of bone quality.

These abstracts were prepared by Editorial Secretary, George Sikorski. Correspondence should be addressed to Australian Orthopaedic Association, Ground Floor, The William Bland Centre, 229 Macquarie Street, Sydney, NSW 2000, Australia.

At least one of the authors is receiving or has received material benefits or support from a commercial source.