2011
DOI: 10.1007/s00264-011-1379-3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Revision total hip arthroplasty using a cementless tapered revision stem in patients with a mean age of 82 years

Abstract: Purpose A tapered straight cementless stem was used for revision in a group of old and very old patients. We wanted to know whether the use of this implant could achieve satisfactory results despite age and osteoporosis. Methods We retrospectively analysed data of 77 elderly patients (77 hips) who underwent revision in cemented and uncemented primary total hip arthroplasties (THA). The patients had a mean age of 82.2 years (range, 75-92 years) at revision surgery. They were monitored for a mean follow up of 7.… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0
2

Year Published

2012
2012
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
0
3
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…The high failure rate of cemented acetabular components in revision THA due to failure of interdigitation of cement into the sclerotic host bone has led to the increased use of cementless fixation [1][2][3][4][5]. Small contained defects can usually be treated with porous hemispherical cups with supplemental bone grafting [6].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The high failure rate of cemented acetabular components in revision THA due to failure of interdigitation of cement into the sclerotic host bone has led to the increased use of cementless fixation [1][2][3][4][5]. Small contained defects can usually be treated with porous hemispherical cups with supplemental bone grafting [6].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Radiographic bone ongrowth was diagnosed in 94.0% of the stems, and unstable fixation in four stems, which compares favourably with some porous-coated designs [ 4 , 9 , 10 ], but is worse than the 1-4.0% reported with other uncemented revision implants [ 2 , 13 , 16 , 18 , 19 , 34 , 38 ]. The four unstable patients needed an exchange surgery for their femoral component, but two of them rejected re-surgery.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 77%
“…This evolution is not the same a reported for other revision stems in which bone increased at the medium level but stayed similar at the distal level using a tapered-fluted grit-blasted revision stem [ 2 , 35 ]; and the cortical index and lateral cortex decreased with an extensively porous-coated stem [ 13 ]. Distal fixation promotes proximal stress-shielding [ 9 ] but no significant stress-shielding has also been reported [ 36 , 34 , 38 ]. No similar quantitative measurements have been published previously using the Furlong-HAP revision stems: Raman et al .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…15-летняя выживаемость составила 92%, а частота оседания более 11 мм наблюдалась в 16,4% случаев [60]. По данным D. Neumann с соавторами, выживаемость 77 конических бедренных компонентов в течение 7,1 года после ревизионной операции составила 95,5% [50].…”
Section: ревизии вертлужного компонентаunclassified
“…При перипротезных переломах с нестабильными бедренными компонентами, как правило, применяются бедренные модульные и ревизион-ные имплантаты дистальной фиксации [1]. Так, по данным D. Neumann с соавторами, при использовании модульных конических бедренных компонентов у 55 больных после перипротезных переломов, при средних сроках наблюдения 67 месяцев у 100% достигнута консолидация перелома, а средний функциональный результат по Харрису составил 72 балла [50]. S.K.…”
Section: ревизии вертлужного компонентаunclassified