Advertisement

MUSCULOSKELETAL SURGERY

, Volume 102, Issue 1, pp 1–9 | Cite as

Femoral revision with primary cementless stems: a systematic review of the literature

  • Luca Cavagnaro
  • Matteo Formica
  • Marco Basso
  • Andrea Zanirato
  • Stefano Divano
  • Lamberto Felli
Review
  • 393 Downloads

Abstract

The use of primary cementless stems in femoral revision has gained popularity, but no clear consensus about the correct indication is still present. The aim of our systematic review is to: (1) summarize the available literature focused on the use of cementless primary stem in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA); (2) evaluate whether the use of cementless primary stems could represent a feasible option in hip revision; (3) define the proper indication of this surgical approach. A systematic literature review was performed about the use of cementless primary stems in revision THA. The PRISMA 2009 checklist was considered to edit our review. A total of nine articles were included. The current evidence is primarily Level IV. A total of 439 patients (454 hips) underwent THA revision with primary cementless stem. Partial cementless porous coated stems were used in 246 hips (54.2%). The majority of patients were affected by type I or II Paprosky femoral defects. The mean stem-related survival rate is 95.6% ± 3.8 with a mean follow-up of 4.7 years ± 1.3. Poor standardization of methodological analysis was observed. Current literature shows lacking evidence about primary cementless stems in revision THA. Despite these limitations, we can affirm that primary cementless stems in femoral revision surgery represent a viable option in selected patients. The proper indication is a patient with femoral Paprosky defect types I or II, with low number of previous surgeries and a previous cementless stem.

Keywords

Total hip arthroplasty Hip revision Cementless stem Primary hip stem Review 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry, Annual Report (2016). https://aoanjrr.sahmri.com/annual-report-2016
  2. 2.
    Register of the Orthopaedic Prosthetic Implants, Annual Report of Emilia-Romagna (2015). https://ripo.cineca.it/pdf/ripo_disponibili.pdf
  3. 3.
    The Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register, Annual Report (2014). http://www.shpr.se/Libraries/Documents/Annual_Report_2014_Eng.sflb.ashx
  4. 4.
    Martz P, Maczynski A, Elsair S, Labattut L, Viard B, Baulot E (2017) Total hip arthroplasty with dual mobility cup in osteonecrosis of the femoral head in young patients: over ten years of follow-up. Int Orthop 41(3):605–610. doi: 10.1007/s00264-016-3344-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Formica M, Cavagnaro L, Basso M, Zanirato A, Palermo A, Felli L (2017) What is the fate of the neck after a collum femoris preserving prosthesis? a nineteen years single center experience. Int Orthop 41(7):1329–1335. doi: 10.1007/s00264-016-3350-9
  6. 6.
    Gerdesmeyer L, Al Muderis M, Gollwitzer H, Harrasser N, Stukenberg M, Clifford MA, Toepfer A (2016) 19 years outcome after cementless total hip arthroplasty with spongy metal structured implants in patients younger than 65 years. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 17(1):429CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kim YH, Park JW, Kim JS (2016) Long-term results of third-generation ceramic-on-ceramic bearing cementless total hip arthroplasty in young patients. J Arthroplasty 31(11):2520–2524. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2016.03.058 Epub Apr 12 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tsukanaka M, Halvorsen V, Nordsletten L, EngesæTer IØ, EngesæTer LB, Marie Fenstad A, Röhrl SM (2016) Implant survival and radiographic outcome of total hip replacement in patients less than 20 years old. Acta Orthop 87(5):479–484. doi: 10.1080/17453674.2016.1212180 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Swarup I, Shields M, Mayer EN, Hendow CJ, Burket JC, Figgie MP (2017) Outcomes after total hip arthroplasty in young patients with osteonecrosis of the hip. Hip Int. doi: 10.5301/hipint.5000457 Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Costi K, Solomon LB, McGee MA, Rickman MS, Howie DW (2017) Advantages in using cemented polished tapered stems when performing total hip arthroplasty in very young patients. J Arthroplasty 32(4):1227–1233. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2016.11.031 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E et al (2007) Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89(4):780PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Crowe JF, Sculco TP, Kahn B (2003) Revision total hip arthroplasty: hospital cost and reimbursement analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 413:175–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bohm P, Bischel O (2004) The use of tapered stems for femoral revision surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res 420:148–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kavanagh BF, Ilstrup DM, Fitzgerald RH Jr (1985) Revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 67(4):517–526CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dohmae YD, Bechtold JE, Sherman RE, Puno RM, Gustilo RB (1988) Reduction in cement-bone interface shear strength between primary and revision arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 236:214–220Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Eisler T, Svensson O, Iyer V, Wejkner B, Schmalholz A, Larsson H, Elmstedt E (2000) Revision total hip arthroplasty using third-generation cementing technique. J Arthroplasty 15(8):974–981CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Haydon CM, Mehin R, Burnett S, Rorabeck CH, Bourne RB, McCalden RW, MacDonald SJ (2004) Revision total hip arthroplasty with use of a cemented femoral component. Results at a mean of ten years. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86(6):1179–1185CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Malkani AL, Lewallen DG, Cabanela ME et al (1996) Femoral component revision using an uncemented, proximally coated, long-stem prosthesis. J Arthroplasty 11(4):411CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mulliken BD, Rorabeck CH, Bourne RB (1996) Uncemented revision total hip arthroplasty: a 4- to-6-year review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 325:156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Moreland JR, Moreno MA (2001) Cementless femoral revision arthroplasty of the hip: minimum 5 years followup. Clin Orthop 393:194–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Paprosky WG, Greidanus NV, Antoniou J (1999) Minimum 10- year-results of extensively porous-coated stems in revision hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 369:230–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Reikerås O, Gunderson RB (2006) Excellent results with femoral revision surgery using an extensively hydroxyapatite coated stem: 59 patients followed for 10-16 years. Acta Orthop 77(1):98–103CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Burnett RS, Rosenberg AG, Barrack RL (2006) Revision total hip arthroplasty: principles, planning, and decision making. In: Barrack RL, Rosenberg AG (eds) Master techniques in orthopaedic surgery: the hip, 2nd edn. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 297–319Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Davidson C, Pike J, Garbuz D, Duncan CP, Masri BA (2008) Intraoperative periprosthetic fractures during total hip arthroplasty: evaluation and management. J Bone Jt Surg Am 90:2000–2012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    OCEBM Levels of Evidence Working Group*. The Oxford levels of evidence 2. Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=5653
  26. 26.
    Miletic B, May O, Krantz N, Girard J, Pasquier G, Migaud H (2012) De-escalation exchange of loosened locked revision stems to a primary stem design: complications, stem fixation and bone reconstruction in 15 cases. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 98(2):138–143. doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2011.08.016 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tetreault MW, Shukla SK, Yi PH, Sporer SM, Della Valle CJ (2014) Are short fully coated stems adequate for “simple” femoral revisions? Clin Orthop Relat Res 472(2):577–583. doi: 10.1007/s11999-013-3167-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kelly SJ, Incavo SJ, Beynnon B (2006) The use of a hydroxyapatite-coated primary stem in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 21(1):64–71CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Thorey F, Lerch M, Kiel H, von Lewinski G, Stukenborg-Colsman C, Windhagen H (2007) Revision total hip arthroplasty with an uncemented primary stem in 79 patients. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 128(7):673–678 (Epub Oct 2) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Khanuja HS, Issa K, Naziri Q, Banerjee S, Delanois RE, Mont MA (2014) Results of a tapered proximally-coated primary cementless stem for revision hip surgery. J Arthroplasty 29(1):225–228. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2013.04.025 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Salemyr MF, Skoldenberg OG, Boden HG, Ahl TE, Adolphson PY (2008) Good results with an uncemented proximally HA-coated stem in hip revision surgery: 62 hips followed for 2-13 years. Acta Orthop 79(2):184–193. doi: 10.1080/17453670710014969 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gastaud O, Cambas PM, Tabutin J (2016) Femoral revision with a primary cementless stem. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 102(2):149–153. doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2015.12.014 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Pinaroli A, Lavoie F, Cartillier JC, Neyret P, Selmi TA (2009) Conservative femoral stem revision: avoiding therapeutic escalation. J Arthroplasty 24(3):365–373. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2007.12.002 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tauber C, Kidron A (2000) Total hip arthroplasty revision using the press-fit CLS Spotorno cementless stem. Twenty-four hips followed between 1987 and 1998. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 120(3–4):209–211CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Paprosky WG, Lawrence J, Cameron H (1990) Femoral defect classification: clinical application. Orthop Rev. 19(suppl 9):9–17Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Migaud H, Ala Eddine T, Demondion X, Jardin C, Laffargue P, Courpied JP et al (2000) Classification of bone loss: reproducibility of classifications and lesion groupings. Rev Chir Orthop 86(Suppl. 2):38–42PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Gustilo RB, Pasternak HS (1988) Revision total hip arthroplasty with titanium ingrowth prosthesis and bone grafting for failed cemented femoral component loosening. Clin Orthop 235:111–119Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Engelbrecht E, Siegel A (1989) Endo-Klinik klassifikation. Radiologe 29(10):508–518PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Burastero G, Basso M, Carrega G, Cavagnaro L, Chiarlone F, Salomone C, Papa G, Felli L (2017) Acetabular spacers in 2-stage hip revision: is it worth it? A single-centre retrospective study. Hip Int 27(2):187–192. doi: 10.5301/hipint.5000446 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Russell RD, Pierce W, Huo MH (2016) Tapered vs cylindrical stem fixation in a model of femoral bone deficiency in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 31(6):1352–1355. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2015.12.008 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Brown NM, Morrison J, Sporer SM, Paprosky WG (2016) The use of structural distal femoral allograft for acetabular reconstruction of paprosky type IIIA defects at a mean 21 years of follow-up. J Arthroplasty 31(3):680–683. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2015.10.020 (Epub 2015 Oct 26) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Inoue D, Kabata T, Maeda T, Kajino Y, Yamamoto T, Takagi T, Oomori T, Tsuchiya H (2015) The value of bulk femoral head allograft in acetabular reconstruction using Kerboull-type plate. Int Orthop 39(9):1839–1844. doi: 10.1007/s00264-015-2857-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kim YH, Park JW, Kim JS, Rastogi D (2015) High survivorship with cementless stems and cortical strut allografts for large femoral bone defects in revision THA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 473(9):2990–3000. doi: 10.1007/s11999-015-4358-y CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Vivès P, Plaquet JL, Leclair A, Blejwas D, Filloux JF (1992) Revision of interlocking rod for loosening of THP. Concept–preliminary results. Acta Orthop Belg 58:28–35PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Romanò CL, Romanò D, Logoluso N, Meani E (2010) Septic versus aseptic hip revision: How different? J Orthop Traumatol 11(3):167–174CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Marsland D, Mears SC (2012) A review of periprosthetic femoral fractures associated with total hip arthroplasty. Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil 3(3):107–120CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Van der Wal BCH, Vischjager M, Grimm B, Heyligers IC, Tonino AJ (2005) Periprosthetic fractures around cementless hydroxyapatite-coated femoral stems. Int Orthop 29(4):235–240CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Capello WN, D’Antonio JA, Naughton M (2014) Periprosthetic fractures around a cementless hydroxyapatite-coated implant: a new fracture pattern is described. Clin Orthop Relat Res 472(2):604–610CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Chen WM, McAuley JP, Engh CA Jr, Hopper RH Jr, Engh CA (2000) Extended slide trochanteric osteotomy for revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 82:1215–1219CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Miner TM, Momberger NG, Chong D, Paprosky WL (2001) The extended trochanteric osteotomy in revision hip arthroplasty: a critical review of 166 cases at mean 3-year, 9-month follow-up. J Arthroplasty 16:S188–S194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Wagner M, Wagner H (1999) [The transfemoral approach for revision of total hip replacement] [in German. Oper Orthop Traumatol 11:278–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luca Cavagnaro
    • 1
  • Matteo Formica
    • 1
  • Marco Basso
    • 1
  • Andrea Zanirato
    • 1
  • Stefano Divano
    • 1
  • Lamberto Felli
    • 1
  1. 1.Orthopaedic DepartmentPoliclinico San MartinoGenoaItaly

Personalised recommendations