Revision total hip arthroplasty in patients with Vancouver type B3 fractures with Paprosky type IIIA, IIIB, and IV femoral defects are difficult to treat. One option for Paprovsky type IIIB and IV defects involves modular cementless, tapered, revision femoral components in conjunction with distal interlocking screws. The aim of this study was to analyze the rate of reoperations and complications and union of the fracture, subsidence of the stem, mortality, and the clinical outcomes in these patients. A total of 46 femoral components in patients with Vancouver B3 fractures (23 with Paprosky type IIIA, 19 with type IIIB, and four with type IV defects) in 46 patients were revised with a transfemoral approach using a modular, tapered, cementless revision Revitan curved femoral component with distal cone-in-cone fixation and prospectively followed for a mean of 48.8 months (SD 23.9; 24 to 112). The mean age of the patients was 80.4 years (66 to 100). Additional distal interlocking was also used in 23 fractures in which distal cone-in-cone fixation in the isthmus was < 3 cm.Aims
Methods
To evaluate the hypothesis that failed osteosynthesis of periprosthetic
Vancouver type B1 fractures can be treated successfully with stem
revision using a transfemoral approach and a cementless, modular,
tapered revision stem with reproducible rates of fracture healing,
stability of the revision stem, and clinically good results. A total of 14 patients (11 women, three men) with a mean age
of 72.4 years (65 to 90) undergoing revision hip arthroplasty after
failed osteosynthesis of periprosthetic fractures of Vancouver type
B1 were treated using a transfemoral approach to remove the well-fixed
stem before insertion of a modular, fluted titanium stem which obtained
distal fixation. These patients were clinically and radiologically
followed up for a mean 52.2 months (24 to 144).Aims
Patients and Methods
We report our experience of revision total hip
replacement (THR) using the Revitan curved modular titanium fluted revision
stem in patients with a full spectrum of proximal femoral defects.
A total of 112 patients (116 revisions) with a mean age of 73.4
years (39 to 90) were included in the study. The mean follow-up
was 7.5 years (5.3 to 9.1). A total of 12 patients (12 hips) died
but their data were included in the survival analysis, and four
patients (4 hips) were lost to follow-up. The clinical outcome,
proximal bone regeneration and subsidence were assessed for 101
hips. The mean Harris Hip Score was 88.2 (45.8 to 100) after five years
and there was an increase of the mean Barnett and Nordin-Score,
a measure of the proximal bone regeneration, of 20.8 (-3.1 to 52.7).
Five stems had to be revised (4.3%), three (2.9%) showed subsidence,
five (4.3%) a dislocation and two of 85 aseptic revisions (2.3%)
a periprosthetic infection. At the latest follow-up, the survival with revision of the stem
as the endpoint was 95.7% (95% confidence interval 91.9% to 99.4%)
and with aseptic loosening as the endpoint, was 100%. Peri-prosthetic
fractures were not observed. We report excellent results with respect to subsidence, the risk
of fracture, and loosening after femoral revision using a modular
curved revision stem with distal cone-in-cone fixation. A successful
outcome depends on careful pre-operative planning and the use of
a transfemoral approach when the anatomy is distorted or a fracture
is imminent, or residual cement or a partially-secured existing
stem cannot be removed. The shortest appropriate stem should, in
our opinion, be used and secured with >
3 cm fixation at the femoral
isthmus, and distal interlocking screws should be used for additional
stability when this goal cannot be realised. Cite this article:
