Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Choice of the Implant Depending on the Type of Defect

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Femoral Revision Arthroplasty

  • 355 Accesses

Abstract

The aim in femoral revision procedures is to achieve a defect-oriented implant selection. Revision stems do not have to be implanted for every revision. The advantages and disadvantages of the various implant and fixation concepts for the different types of implantation are described on the basis of the most common defect classification according to Paprosky.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Paprosky WG, Greidanus NV, Antoniou J. Minimum 10-year-results of extensively porous-coated stems in revision hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop. 1999;369:230–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Paprosky WG, Aribindi R. Hip replacement: treatment of femoral bone loss using distal bypass fixation. Instr Course Lect. 2000;49:119–30.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Wirtz DC, Heller KD, Holzwarth U, et al. A modular femoral implant for uncemented stem revision in THR. Int Orthop. 2000;24:134–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Cavagnaro L, Formica M, Basso M, Zanirato A, Divano S, Felli L. Femoral revision with primary cementless stems: a systematic review of the literature. Musculoskelet Surg. 2018;102:1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Iorio R, Healy WL, Presutti AH. A prospective outcomes analysis of femoral component fixation in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2008;23:662–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Artiaco S, Fusini F, Colzani G, Aprato A, Zoccola K, Masse A. Long-term results of Zweymüller SLL femoral stem in revision hip arthroplasty for stage II and stage IIIA femoral bone defect: a 9–15-year follow-up study. Musculoskelet Surg. 2020;104(3):273–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12306-019-00617-y.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Li H, Chen F, Wang Z, Chen Q. Comparison of clinical efficacy between modular cementless stem prostheses and coated cementless long-stem prostheses on bone defect in hip revision arthroplasty. Med Sci Monit. 2016;22:670–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Ding ZH, Ling TX, Yuan MC, Qin YZ, Mou P, Wang HY, Zhou ZK. Minimum 8-year follow-up of revision THA with severe femoral bone defects using extensively porous-coated stems and cortical strut grafts. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020;21:218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Maurer SG, Baitner AC, Di Cesare PE. Reconstruction of the failed femoral component and proximal femoral bone loss in revision hip surgery. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2000;8:354–63.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Weeden SH, Paprosky WG. Minimal 11-year follow-up of extensively porous-coated stems in femoral revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2002;17 Suppl:134–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Fink B, Grossmann A, Schubring S, Schulz MS, Fuerst M. Short-term results of hip revisions with a curved cementless modular stem in association with the surgical approach. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2009;129:65–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Tangsataporn S, Safir OA, Vincent AD, Abdelbary H, Gross AE, Kuzyk PRT. Risk factors for subsidence of a modular tapered femoral stem used for revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2015;30:1030–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Fink B, Grossmann A, Fuerst M. Distal interlocking screws with a modular revision stem for revision total hip arthroplasty in severe bone defects. J Arthroplasty. 2010;25:759–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. van Houwelingen AP, Duncan CP, Masri BA, Greidanus NV, Garbuz DS. High survival of modular tapered stems for proximal femoral bone defects at 5 to 10 years follow-up. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471:454–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Dzaja I, Lyons MC, McCalden RW, Naudie DDD, Howard JL. Revision hip arthroplasty using a modular revision system in cases of severe bone loss. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29:1594–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Desai RR, Malkani AI, Hitt KD, et al. Revision total hip arthroplasty using a modular femoral implant in Paprosky III and IV femoral bone loss. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27:1492–1498.e1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Pierson JL, Small SR, Rodriguez JA, et al. The effect of taper angle and spline geometry on the initial stability of tapered, splined modular titanium stems. J Arthroplasty. 2015;30:1254–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Fink B, Grossmann A, Schulz MS. Bone regeneration in the proximal femur following implantation of modular revision stems with distal fixation. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2011;131:465–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Malkani AL, Paiso JM, Sim FH. Proximal femoral replacement with megaprosthesis. Instr Course Lect. 2000;49:141–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Raousli MR, Porat MD, Hozack WJ, Parvizi J. Proximal femoral replacement and allograft prosthesis composite in the treatment of periprosthetic fractures with significant proximal bone loss. Orthop Surg. 2012;4:203–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Tomford WW. Transmission of disease through transplantation of musculoskeletal allografts. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1995;77-A:1742–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Viste A, Perry KL, Taunton MJ, Hanssen AD, Abdel MP. Proximal femoral replacement in contemporary revision total hip arthroplasty for severe femoral bone loss.: a review of outcomes. Bone Joint J. 2017;99-B:325–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Orthopaedic Clinic Markgröningen, Markgröningen, Baden-Württemberg, Germany

    Bernd Fink

  2. Orthopaedic Department, University-Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany

    Bernd Fink

Authors
  1. Bernd Fink
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bernd Fink .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Fink, B. (2022). Choice of the Implant Depending on the Type of Defect. In: Femoral Revision Arthroplasty. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84821-7_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84821-7_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-84820-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-84821-7

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation