Joint-Preserving and Joint-Replacing Procedures: Why, When, and Which? A Challenging and Responsible Decision

  • Siegfried Weller
Conference paper


The decision-making process in context with the treatment of hip joint diseases and posttraumatic conditions more than ever has to be respected. Multifold experiences—especially long-term results after hip joint replacement—during the past 46 years since Charnley justify and require detailed discussion and evaluation in respect to the borderline between a joint-preserving and a joint-replacing procedure. We must remember and respect the progress made in connection with bone and joint preservation techniques and the importance of the factor of gaining time for our patients—preferably the younger patient cohort—with a longer age expectancy.


Joint Replacement Prosthetic Component Cement Technique Periprosthetic Bone Loss Joint Articulation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Adler CP (1997) Knochenkrankheiten. Diagnostik makroskopischer, histologischer und radiologischer Strukturveränderungen des Skeletts, 2nd Aufl. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bombelli R (1976) Osteochondritis of the hip: pathogenesis and consequent therapy. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pauwels F (1976) Atlas zur Biomechanik der gesunden und kranken Hüfte. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Asmuth T, Bachmann J, Eingartner C, et al (1998) Results with the cementless Bicontact stem: multicenter study of 553 cases. In: Weller S, Volkmann R (eds) The Bicontact hip system. Thieme, Stuttgart, pp 63–74Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Eingartner C, Volkmann R, Winter E, et al (2001) Results of a cementless titanium alloy straight femoral shaft prosthesis after 10 years of follow-up. Int Orthop 25(2): 81–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Song W S, Yoo JJ (2004) Experience with the Bicontact revision stems with distal interlocking. J Arthroplasty 1:27–34Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Blömer W, Fink U (1997) Biomechanische Aspekte zementfreier Revisionsendoprothesen des Hüftgelenks: eine biomechanische Analyse der Verankerungssituation im Falle von Primär-und Revisionsschäften. In: Schneider E (ed) Unfallchirurg 261:20–41 (special issue)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eingartner C, Heigele T, Dieter J, et al (2003) Long-term results with the Bicontact System: aspects to investigate and to learn from. Int Orthop 27(suppl 1):11–15Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Flamme C, Wirth CJ, Stukenborg-Colsmann C (2001) Charakteristik der Lernkurve bei der Hüfttotalendoprothese am Beispiel der Bicontact-Prothese. Z Orthop 139:189–193PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Weller S (2003) 15 years BICONTACT Hip Endoprosthesis System. The past-present-the future. What has been achieved? Int Orthop 27(suppl 1):2–6Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Siegfried Weller
    • 1
  1. 1.TuebingenGermany

Personalised recommendations