These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: What Are the Long-term Results of Cemented Revision THA with Use of Both Acetabular and Femoral Impaction Bone Grafting in Patients Younger Than 55 Years?
    Author: Verspeek J, Nijenhuis TA, Kuijpers MFL, Rijnen WHC, Schreurs BW.
    Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res; 2021 Jan 01; 479(1):84-91. PubMed ID: 32898047.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: The increasing number of THAs in younger patients will inevitably result in an increase of revision procedures. However, there is little evidence about the outcome of revision procedures in this patient group. Therefore, we updated a previous study conducted 5 years ago about the outcome of revision procedures in patients younger than 55 years. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We sought to provide a concise update on the previously reported (1) long-term failure rate as defined by repeat revision, (2) clinical outcome as defined by the Oxford Hip score and the Harris Hip score, and (3) radiographic outcome of cemented revision THA performed with impaction bone grafting on both the acetabular and femoral sides in one surgery in patients younger than 55 years old. METHODS: Between 1991 and 2007, we performed 86 complete THA revisions in patients younger than 55 years. In 38% (33 of 86) of revisions, bone impaction grafting was used on both the acetabular and femoral side because of acetabular and femoral bone stock loss. Mean age at time of revision was 46 ± 8 years. No patient was lost to follow-up, but six patients died during follow-up, including three since 2015. Still, the hips of all 33 patients were included in analysis at a mean of 17 ± 5 years. Failure was calculated using competing risk analysis. For clinical outcome, we assessed the Harris Hip score and the Oxford Hip score from our longitudinally maintained institutional database. Radiographic analysis was performed to evaluate radiographic loosening, defined as radiolucencies ≥ 2 mm in all zones or ≥ 5 mm migration for both components. The acetabular component was also considered loose with tilting ≥ 5°. RESULTS: The 15-year failure rate of revision THA was 27% (95% CI 13 to 44) for re-revision of any component for any reason and 10% (95% CI 3 to 25) for re-revision of any component for aseptic loosening. The mean Harris Hip score increased from 55 ± 18 preoperatively to 74 ± 22 at latest follow-up. Eight cups were considered radiographically loose, seven of which were re-revised. No stems were considered radiographically loose. Failure rate with endpoint radiographic loosening at 15 years was 23% (95% CI 10 to 39). CONCLUSION: We found that impaction bone grafting with a cemented cup and a cemented stem is a valuable biological revision technique that results in a stable and durable solution, after one or even multiple previous revision THAs. Although current implants may prove sufficient in most cases, they do not promote bone stock preservation. We believe that in young patients with bone stock loss, impaction bone grafting can be used as long as the defect can be contained adequately with a metal mesh and viable bone bed is available for revascularization. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]