Current concepts supplementExtensively Porous-Coated Stems for Femoral Revision: A Choice for All Seasons
Section snippets
Materials and Methods
To identify our study population, we queried our institutional database for all revision THA procedures where the femoral component was revised using an extensively porous-coated stem with a cylindrical distal geometry. The specific implant designs included standard versions of the Anatomic Medullary Locking (AML), Solution, Prodigy, and Proximal Femoral Replacement (PFR) stems (Fig. 1). Custom components were excluded from the study population. All stems were manufactured by DePuy (a Johnson &
Results
Using our institutional database, we identified 905 femoral revisions performed with extensively porous-coated stems between June 1980 and August 2006. If a patient had undergone multiple revision procedures, the index THA for this study was the first revision at our institution where an extensively porous-coated component was implanted. The stem revisions were performed among 491 women and 414 men with a mean age of 62.6 ± 14.5 years at the time of the index revision. The mean follow-up among
Discussion
The current study reviewed our long-term results using cylindrical, extensively porous-coated stems. Although current follow-up was not available for all cases, 25% (224 THAs) had been seen within the past year and 42% (380 THAs) within the past 3 years. To account for censored values, we used a survivorship analysis [3]. Similar to our previous reports [4], we found the femoral fixation achieved with extensively porous-coated stems to be durable. Although rerevisions for stem loosening
References (33)
- et al.
Cementless revision total hip arthroplasty without allograft in severe proximal femoral defects
J Arthroplasty
(2005) - et al.
5-13 year follow-up study on cementless femoral components in revision surgery
J Arthroplasty
(1997) - et al.
Minimal 11-year follow-up of extensively porous-coated stems in femoral revision total hip arthroplasty
J Arthroplasty
(2002) - et al.
Femoral revision with a fluted, tapered, modular stem
J Arthroplasty
(2006) - et al.
Impaction allografting with cement for extensive femoral bone loss in revision hip surgery
J Arthroplasty
(2001) - et al.
Femoral impaction grafting in revision hip arthroplasty with irradiated bone
J Arthroplasty
(2002) - et al.
Impacted corticocancellous allografts and cement for femoral revision of total hip arthroplasty using Lubinus and Charnley prostheses
J Arthroplasty
(2002) - et al.
Proximal femoral allografts for reconstruction of bone stock in revision arthroplasty of the hip
Orthop Clin North Am
(1998) - et al.
Hip and knee revisions: U.S. projections from 2005-2030
- et al.
Prevalence of primary and revision total hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 1990 through 2002
J Bone Joint Surg Am
(2005)
The validity of survivorship analysis in total joint arthroplasty
J Bone Joint Surg Am
Distal ingrowth components
Clin Orthop
Survivorship of uncemented proximally porous-coated femoral components
Clin Orthop
Long-term results of revision total hip replacement
J Bone Joint Surg Am
Revision total hip arthroplasty with the use of so-called second-generation cementing techniques for aseptic loosening of the femoral component. A fifteen-year-average follow-up study
J Bone Joint Surg Am
Revision total hip arthroplasty
J Bone Joint Surg Am
Cited by (59)
Extensively Porous-Coated Stems Demonstrate Excellent Long-Term Survivorship in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty
2023, Journal of ArthroplastyLong-Term Results of Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Using a Modern Extensively Porous-Coated Femoral Stem
2020, Journal of ArthroplastySubsidence Following Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Using Modular and Monolithic Components
2020, Journal of ArthroplastyFemoral Revision
2019, Operative Techniques in OrthopaedicsCitation Excerpt :Other complications of the technique include proximal migration of the fragment and bursitis around the trochanter. Extensively coated femoral components have been shown to have excellent results when used in revision hip arthroplasty, with re-revision rates as low as 2%, however this was dependent on the amount of proximal bone loss.8 When using a nonmodular, tapered fluted design, there was no difference in reoperation when compared to a modular design in a recent retrospective review at a mean of 5-year follow-up, although they did have slightly higher subsidence.9
Nonmodular Stems Are a Viable Alternative to Modular Stems in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty
2019, Journal of Arthroplasty
Benefits or funds were received in partial or total support of the research material described in this article. These benefits or support were received from the following sources: General research funding was provided by Inova Health Services. Although no benefits or funds were received from any other commercial entity to support this research study, two of the authors serve as consultants for DePuy, a Johnson & Johnson company. One of the authors receives royalties from DePuy and also owns Johnson & Johnson stock.