Download PDF
Z Orthop Unfall 2007; 145: S34-S39
DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-965658
Original Article

© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Treatment of Large Femoral Bone Defects - 15-Year Experiences with the Cementless Bicontact Revision Stem with Distal Interlocking

B. G. Ochs1 , R. Volkmann2 , C. Eingartner3 , I. Ludolph1 , S. Weller1 , K. Weise1 , U. Ochs1
  • 1BG Trauma Center, University of Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany
  • 2Department for Trauma and Reconstructive Surgery, Clinical Center, Bad Hersfeld, Germany
  • 3Unit for Trauma and Reconstructive Surgery, Caritas Hospital, Bad Mergentheim, Germany
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
16 October 2007 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Aim: With the steady growth in the number of hip arthroplasty revision operations, the concept and long-term results of the Bicontact revision stem with distal interlocking for the treatment of extensive femoral bone defects were investigated in this prospective study. Method: The first 156 stem revision operations performed between January 1992 and December 2002 were evaluated. The indication for operation was aseptic loosening in 133, stem fracture in 14, recurrent dislocation in 2 and reimplantation following Girdlestone removal of a septic prosthesis in 7. The cup component was revised at the same time in 74 cases. Results: Higher-grade femoral bone defects were found intraoperatively in 66 %. The average age of the patients was 71.4 (34 - 88) years at operation and 76.9 (44 - 94) years at the last follow-up. The average period until follow-up, re-revision or loss to follow-up was 5.54 (0.1 - 14.9) years. The clinical and radiological follow-up rate (with reference to the total number of patients) was 35 % (55 von 156), and 51 % (55 of 107) with reference to patients still living. The median Harris Hip Score was 63.7 points. In the observation period, 12 stems were exchanged for a cemented standard stem, 5 stems were removed because of infection and 2 stems were revised because of periprosthetic fracture. The calculated survival rate for the stems after 14.9 years was 85.9 %. Conclusion: The 15-year results confirm the biomechanical concept of the Bicontact revision stem with optional distal interlocking for the treatment of extensive bone defects in stem revision surgery.

Key words

total hip arthroplasty - Bicontact revision stem - long‐term results - femoral bone defect - cementless

References

  • 1 Bettin D, Katthagen B D. [The German Society of Orthopedics and Traumatology classification of bone defects in total hip endoprostheses revision operations] Die DGOT-Klassifikation von Knochendefekten bei Hüft-Totalendoprothesen - Revisionsoperationen.  Z Orthop. 1997;  135 281-284
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Böhm P, Bischel O. Femoral revision with the Wagner SL revision stem: Evaluation of one hundred and twenty-nine revisions followed for a mean of 4,8 years.  J Bone Joint Surg [Am]. 2001;  83 1023-1031
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Brooker A F, Bowerman J W, Robinson R A, Riley Jr L H. Ectopic ossification following total hip replacement. Incidence and a method of classification.  J Bone Joint Surg [Am]. 1973;  55 1629-32
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Callaghan J J, Salvati E A, Pellicci P M, Wilson P D, Ranawat C S. Results of revision for mechanical failure after cemented total hip replacement, 1979 to 1982. A two to five-year follow-up.  J Bone Joint Surg [Am]. 1985;  67 1074-1085
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Cameron H U. The two- to six-year results with a proximally modular noncemented total hip replacement used in hip revisions.  Clin Orthop. 1994;  298 47-53
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Cameron H U. Modular shafts in hip prosthesis revision surgery.  Orthopäde. 2001;  30 287-293
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Chandler H P, Ayres D K, Tan R C, Anderson L C, Varma A K. Revision total hip replacement using the S‐Rom femoral component.  Clin Orthop. 1995;  319 130-140
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Collier J P, Mayor M B, Williams I R, Surprenant V A, Suprenant H P, Currier B H. The tradeoffs associated with modular hip prostheses.  Clin Orthop. 1995;  311 91-101
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Crawford S A, Siney P D, Wroblewski B M. Revision of failed total hip arthroplasty with a proximal femoral modular cemented stem.  J Bone Joint Surg [Br]. 2000;  82 684-688
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Christie M J, DeBoer D K, Tingstad E M, Capps M, Brinson M F, Trick L W. Clinical experience with a modular noncemented femoral component in revision total hip arthroplasty: 4- to 7-year results.  J Arthroplasty. 2000;  15 840-848
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Dobbs H S. Survivorship of total hip replacement.  J Bone Joint Surg [Br]. 1998;  62 168-173
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Dohmae Y, Bechthold J E, Sherman R E, Puno R M, Gustilo R B. Reduction in cement-bone interface shear strength between primary and revision arthroplasty.  Clin Orthop. 1988;  36 214-220
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Eingartner C, Volkmann R, Ochs U, Egetemeyer D, Weise K. Intramedullary stabilisation of periprosthetic fractures of the femur taking special account of bone defects.  Oper Orthop Traumatol. 2006;  18 341-363
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Gilbert J L, Buckley C A, Jacobs J J. In vivo corrosion of modular hip prosthesis components in mixed and similar metal combinations. The effect of crevice, stress, motion, and alloy coupling.  J Biomed Mater Res. 1993;  27 1533-1544
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Gruen T A, McNeice G M, Amstutz H C. “Modes of failure” of cemented stem-type femoral components: a radiographic analysis of loosening.  Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1979;  141 17-27
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Haddad F S, Masri B A, Garbuz D S, Duncan C P. Femoral bone loss in total hip arthroplasty: classification and preoperative planning.  J Bone Joint Surg [Am]. 1999;  81 1483-1489
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Harris W H. Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation.  J Bone Joint Surg [Am]. 1969;  51 737-755
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Malchau U, Herberts P, Ahnfelt L. Prognosis of total hip replacement in Sweden. Follow-up of 92.675 operations performed 1978 - 1990.  Acta Orthop Scand. 1993;  64 497-506
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Malkani A L, Settecerri J J, Sim F H, Chao E Y, Wallrichs S L. Long-term results of proximal femoral replacement for non-neoplastic disorders.  J Bone Joint Surg [Br]. 1995;  77 351-356
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Martin J W, Sugiyma H, Kaiser A D, Van Hoech J, Whiteside L A. An analysis of screw fixation of the femoral component in cementless hip arthroplasty.  J Arthroplasty. 1990;  5 15-20
    Google Scholar
  • 21 McKellop H A, Sarmiento A, Brien W, Park S H. Interface corrosion of a modular head total hip prosthesis.  J Arthroplasty. 1992;  7 291-294
    Google Scholar
  • 22 Murray D W, Carr A J, Bulstrode C J. Survival analysis of joint replacements.  J Bone Joint Surg [Br]. 1993;  75 697-704
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Pak J U, Paprosky W G, Jablonsky W S, Lawrence J M. Femoral strut allografts in cementless revision total hip arthroplasty.  Clin Orthop. 1993;  295 172-178
    Google Scholar
  • 24 Puhl W, Kessler S. Which factors influence the long term outcome of total hip replacement?. Rieker C, Oberholzer S, Urs W World tribology Forum in Arthroplasty. Bern, Göttingen; Huber 2001: pp.35-47
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Roberson J R. Proximal femoral bone loss after total hip arthroplasty.  Orthop Clin North Am. 1992;  23 291-302
    Google Scholar
  • 26 Rothman K J. Estimation of confidence limits for the cumulative probability of survival in life table analysis.  J Chron Dis. 1978;  31 557-560
    Google Scholar
  • 27 Schramm M, Wirtz D C, Holzwarth U, Pitto R P. The Morse taper junction in modular revision hip replacement - a biomechanical and retrieval analysis.  Biomed Tech. 2000;  45 105-109
    Google Scholar
  • 28 Volkmann R, Bretschneider C, Eingartner C, Weller S. Revision arthroplasty - femoral aspect: the concept to solve high grade defects.  Int Orthop. 2003;  27(Suppl 1) 24-28
    Google Scholar
  • 29 Wagner H. [A revision prosthesis for the hip joint] Revisionsprothese für das Hüftgelenk.  Orthopäde. 1989;  18 438-453
    Google Scholar
  • 30 Wirtz D C, Niethard F U. [Etiology, diagnosis and therapy of aseptic hip prosthesis loosening - a status assessment] Ursachen, Diagnostik und Therapie der aseptischen Hüftendoprothesenlockerung - eine Standortbestimmung.  Z Orthop. 1997;  135 270-280
    Google Scholar
  • 31 Wirtz D C, Heller K D, Holzwarth U, Siebert C, Pitto R P, Zeiler G, Blencke B A, Forst R. A modular femoral implant for uncemented stem revision.  Int Orthop. 2000;  24 134-138
    Google Scholar

Dr. MD Uwe Ochs

Berufsgenossenschaftliche Unfallklinik Tübingen

Schnarrenbergstraße 95

72076 Tuebingen

Germany

Phone: + 49 70 71 6 06 11 67

Fax: + 49 70 71 6 06 10 02

Email: uochs@bgu-tuebingen.de

      >