Advertisement

Zemententfernung in der Femurschaftrevision mit dem ROBODOC-System

  • M. Nogler
  • M. Krismer

Zusammenfassung

Ist aufgrund einer septischen oder aseptischen Lockerung eines zementierten Femurschafts der Wechsel der Prothese indiziert, so muss zunächst der Schaft inklusive des alten Zements entfernt werden [5]. Nach Entfernung der Prothese, die meist problemlos gelingt, verbleiben im Femur zwei unterschiedliche Zementanteile (Abb. 19.1). Im Bereich des Prothesenlagers liegt meist ein relativ dünner Zementmantel. Unterhalb der Prothesenspitze findet sich ein Zementpfropfen unterschiedlicher Länge. Die Entfernung des proximalen Mantelanteils gelingt üblicherweise mit einfachen Werkzeugen, wogegen die Entfernung distaler Mantelanteile und des Zementpfropfens häufig eine komplexe Aufgabe ist.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Bargar WL, Bauer A, Börner M (1998) Primary and revision total hip replacement using the Robodoc system. Clin Orthop 354:82–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boerner M, Bauer A, Lahmer A (1997) Computer-assisted robotics in hip endoprosthesis implantation. Unfallchirurg 100:640–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Buehler KO, Walker RH (1998) Polymethylmethacrylate removal from the femur using a crescentic window technique. Orthopedics 21: 697–700PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Caillouette JT, Gorab RS, Klapper RC, Anzel SH (1991) Revision arthroplasty facilitated by ultrasonic tool cement removal. Part I: In vitro evaluation. Orthop Rev 20: 353–357PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dennis DA, Dingman CA, Meglan DA, O’Leary JF, Mallory TH, Berme N (1987) Femoral cement removal in revision total hip arthroplasty. A biomechanical analysis. Clin Orthop 142–147Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Klapper RC, Caillouette JT, Callaghan JJ, Hozack WJ (1992) Ultrasonic technology in revision joint arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 147–154Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Klein AH, Rubash HE (1993) Femoral windows in revision total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 164–170Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    May TC, Krause WR, Preslar AJ, Smith MJ, Beaudoin AJ, Cardea JA (1990) Use ofhigh-energy shock wave s for bone cement removal. J Arthroplasty 5: 19–27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Moreland JR, Marder R, Anspach WE Jr (1986) The window technique for the removal of broken femoral stems in total hip replacement. Clin Orthop 245–249Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nogler M, Krismer M, Haid C, Ogon M, Bach C, Wimmer C (2001) Excessive heat generation during cutting of cement in the Robodoc hip-revision procedure. Acta Orthop Scand 72: 595–599PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nogler M, Maurer H, Wimmer C, Gegenhuber C, Bach C, Krismer M (2001) Knee pain caused by a fiducial marker in the medial femoral condyle: a clinical and anatomic study of 20 cases. Acta Orthop Scand 72: 477–480PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nogler M, Wimmer C, Lass-Florl C, Mayr E, Trobos S, Gegenhuber C (2001) Contamination risk of the surgical team through ROBODOC’s high-speed cutter. Clin Orthop 225–231Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rinaldi E, Vaienti E (1992) The trans-femoral approach in prosthesis replacements: results after two years. Acta Biomed Ateneo Parmense 63: 79–83PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Savvidis E, Loer F (1989) Surgical technique in femur shaft fenestration within the scope of revision operations following hip joint total endoprostheses. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 127: 228–236PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schreurs BW, Bierkens AF, Huiskes R, Hendrikx AJ, Slooff TJ (1991) The effect of the extracorporeal shock wave lithotriptor on bone cement. J Biomed Mater Res 25: 157–164PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sherk HH, Lane G, Rhodes A, Black J (1995) Carbon dioxide laser removal of polymethylmethacrylate. Clin Orthop z: 67–71Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stranne SK, Callaghan JJ, Cocks FH, Weinerth JL, Seaber AV, Myers BS (1993) Would revision arthroplasty be facilitated by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy? An evaluation including whole bone strength in dogs. Clin Orthop 252–258Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sydney SV, Mallory TH (1990) Controlled perforation. A safe method of cement rem oval from the femoral canal. Clin Orthop 168–172Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Taylor RH, Joskowicz L, Williamson B et al. (1999) Computer-integrated revision total hip replacement surgery: concept and preliminary results. Med Image Anal 3: 301–319PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yaffey MA (1968) Ultrasonic cement removal. JPO J Pract Orthod 2: 418.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zimmer M, Klobl R, De Toma G et al. (1992) Bone-cement removal with the excimer laser in revision arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 112: 15–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Nogler
  • M. Krismer

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations