Proximal Femoral Bone Loss Research Articles

Techniques for abductor reattachment in proximal femoral replacement for non-oncological reconstructions: a narrative review.

Proximal femoral replacement due to revision hip arthroplasty or catastrophic proximal femur fracture fixation failures with considerable proximal femur bone loss can lead to a substantial loss of function of the soft tissue around the hip and the abductor muscles in particular. Surgical techniques of gluteus medius repair and/or abductor mechanism reattachment/reconstruction are widely debated in the literature, but it is quite rarely dealt with in the context of megaprosthesis and femoral reconstruction, particularly in non-oncologic patients. The aim of this study is to present a narrative review of the literature on techniques for abductor reattachment in proximal femoral replacement for non-oncological reconstructions. MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched by two researchers independently from inception until February 1st, 2023 (923 for MEDLINE and 963 for Embase; Cochrane is a composite of multiple databases and thus does not report a standard inception date). Articles examining proximal femoral reconstruction with megaprosthesis or allograft prosthesis were included. Studies concerning cadaver and oncologic patients were excluded. If the researchers failed to find an agreement on whether to include a study, the senior researcher would make a final decision in such cases. Data were extracted and stored, and qualitative synthesis was performed. A total of 1,157 articles from MEDLINE, 11,187 articles from Embase, and 0 articles from Cochrane were identified. Of 12,344 articles, the structured screening process revealed 10 eligible trials. Four different types of abductor musculature reconstruction/reinsertion were identified. Multiple and complex revision hip arthroplasties as well as multiple surgical procedures for proximal femur fracture fixations failures may have a great impact on proximal femur bone stock condition and soft tissue preservation requiring the use of a proximal femur megaprosthesis. In such cases, the abductor mechanism reconstruction and/or reattachment is achievable with different techniques that can be resumed in four different groups: direct suture to the prosthesis, trochanteric sleeve osteotomy, muscle-to-muscle suture, and synthetic tube augmentation suture.

Revision total hip arthroplasty with custom-made hip implant for Paprosky type IV femoral bone loss

Introduction Replacement of extensive Paprosky type IIIB and type IV bone loss is a challenge in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA).The purpose was to demonstrate the possibility of femoral reconstruction in proximal femur bone loss using a custom-made implant for revision THA.Material and methods We report a case of a 72-year-old patient with an extensive Paprosky type IV femoral defect, which was replaced using a custom-made modular component.Results The femoral defect was successfully augmented with a custom-made modular component, and the hip function was restored. The locking mechanism of the constrained system failed at 6 months with the joint remained stable. The patient could ambulate with additional support. VAS, HHS and HOOS scores measured before and after 2 years showed positive dynamics.Discussion Paprosky type IIIB and type IV defects are a challenge for revision hip arthroplasty. There is a variety of surgical options with outcomes being ambiguous. Modular and monoblock tapered stems, the technique of impacted bone graft have been reported to have excellent results in revision THA with Paprosky type III and IV defects. A custom-made femoral component was developed based on the principle of modular stems. Joint stability is a concomitant problem with a severe bone defect that can be addressed with a double mobility or constrained system. Both methods are associated with a sufficient number of complications.Conclusion Replacement of a Paprosky type IV femoral defect with a custom-made modular component demonstrated satisfactory outcomes at a two‑year follow-up. The patient had no complaints, could ambulate unassisted using an elbow crutch and positively evaluated the result of treatment.

Factors Associated With Failure Following Proximal Femoral Replacement for Salvage Hip Surgery for Nononcologic Indications

BackgroundProximal femoral replacement (PFR) is used when extensive proximal femoral bone loss is encountered during revision total hip arthroplasty. However, further data on 5-to-10–year survivorship and predictors of failure are needed. Our aim was to assess the survivorship of contemporary PFRs used for nononcologic indications and determine factors associated with failure. MethodsA single-institution retrospective observational study was conducted between June 1, 2010 and August 31, 2021 for patients undergoing PFR for non-neoplastic indications. Patients were followed for a minimum of 6 months. Demographic, operative, clinical, and radiographic data were collected. Implant survivorship was determined via Kaplan-Meier analysis of 56 consecutive cemented PFRs in 50 patients. ResultsAt a mean follow-up of 4 years, the mean Oxford Hip Score was 36.2 and patient satisfaction was rated at an average of 4.7 of 5 on the Likert scale. Radiographic evidence of femoral-sided aseptic loosening was determined in 2 PFRs at a median of 9.6 years. The 5-year survivorship with all-cause reoperation and revision as end points was 83.2% (95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 70.1% to 91.0%) and 84.9% (95% CI: 72.0% to 92.2%), respectively. The 5-year survivorship was 92.3% (95% CI: 78.0% to 97.5%) for stem length > 90 mm compared to 68.4% (95% CI: 39.5% to 85.7%) for stem length ≤ 90 mm. A construct-to-stem length ratio (CSR) ≤ 1 was associated with a 91.7% (95% CI: 76.4% to 97.2%) survival, while a CSR > 1 was associated with a 73.6% (95% CI: 47.4% to 88.1%) survival. ConclusionA PFR stem length ≤ 90 mm and CSR > 1 were associated with increased rates of failure.

Gluteus Maximus Tendon Reference: A Novel Method to Restore Leg Length in Total Hip Arthroplasty With Femoral Bone Loss

Accurate restoration of leg length and proximal femoral geometry is essential for achieving satisfactory outcomes in both primary and revision total hip arthroplasty. Although common landmarks such as the greater trochanter and the lesser trochanter (LT) may be used to measure limb length intraoperatively in primary cases, these landmarks may be absent or disrupted in fractures and revision procedures. We propose the distance between the gluteus maximus tendon gluteal sling (GS) and the center of the femoral head (FHC) as a novel anatomic landmark beyond the zone of injury, which can be used to restore limb length in the setting of proximal femoral bone loss or fracture. One hundred healthy hips were retrospectively reviewed using MRI to determine the distance between the proximal edge of the GS and the FHC. Additional measurements were collected including the distance between the GS and the greater trochanter and LT, as well as the FHC to the LT and greater trochanter.Results: The distance between the GS and the femoral head was consistent and measured 8.0 cm (±1.88 cm, SD = 0.66). A moderate positive correlation (r = 0.37, P < 0.001) was observed between patient height and GS to FHC distance. The distance between the GS and the center of the femoral head consistently measures 8 cm and can be used to set implant height to restore proximal femoral geometry and leg length in total hip arthroplasty with proximal femoral bone loss.

Tapered Modular Femoral Stems for Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Show Excellent Mid-Term Survivorship.

Revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) can be challenging in the face of proximal femoral bone loss, catastrophic implant failure, or recurrent hip instability. Tapered modular femoral stems have shown substantial success at short follow up for aseptic revisions. The purpose of this study was to report mid-term revision THA outcomes of a tapered modular femoral stem at a tertiary referral center used to treat both aseptic as well as periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs). We specifically sought to assess: (1) revision-free implant survivorship; (2) patient-reported outcome measurements (i.e., Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Joint Replacement [HOOS JR]); (3) postoperative surgical complications and 30-day readmissions; as well as (4) radiographic outcomes. We reviewed a consecutive series of 92 patients who underwent revision THA between 2009 and 2013 with a tapered modular femoral stem. After accounting for mortality (n=7) and loss to follow up (n=13), a total of 72 implants in 66 patients who had eight years of mean follow up (range, 2 to 11) were included. PJI (46%) was the predominant preoperative indication for revision THA, followed by aseptic loosening (25%), periprosthetic fracture (18%), and symptomatic hardware (10%). Outcomes of interest included all-cause revision-free survivorship, postoperative complications, and HOOS JR, as well as SF-12 scores. Radiographically, they were evaluated for subsidence, radiolucencies, and loosening. Aseptic revision-free survivorship of the femoral component was 95.8% (69 out of 72). Including septic cases, revision-free survivorship was 87.5% (63 cases), and 60 implants (83.3%) had an all-cause revision-free survivorship. For those patients who underwent septic revisions, eight out of nine remained infection free, while one underwent a resection arthroplasty. Furthermore, the cause for femoral aseptic revisions were subsidence (1.4%) and aseptic loosening (2.8%). Functional score improvements for HOOS JR, SF-12 PCS, as well as MCS were 29, 13, and 2, respectively (all p<0.001). There were eight emergency department visits (11.1%,) and six inpatient readmissions (8.3%). Additionally, two patients had dislocations (2.8%, two out of 72) not requiring revision. There were two cases of femoral subsidence and one aseptic loosening requiring revision; whereas, the rest did not demonstrate any progressive radiographic lucencies. The eight-year mean survivorship results of the tapered modular femoral stems in revision THA demonstrated excellent results. Our series found improved outcome scores and relatively low postoperative complications, which indicate a favorable implant survivorship profile for revision THA. These results serve to inform arthroplasty surgeons of expected outcomes of the modular stems when used for patients who need complex revision THA.

The West China Hospital radiographic classification for fibrous dysplasia in femur and adjacent bones: A retrospective analysis of 205 patients.

ObjectiveThis study aims to investigate the reliability and clinical outcome of a newly developed classification system for patients with fibrous dysplasia (FD) of the femur and adjacent bones, optimizing its evaluation and management.MethodsA total of 205 patients (121 female and 84 male) with FD in the femur and adjacent bones were included in this retrospective study. All affected femurs were measured and treated based on this classification at our institution between 2009 and 2019. Based on previous studies and extensive clinical follow‐up, we cautiously proposed the West China Hospital radiographic classification for FD in femur and adjacent bones following corresponding treatment options. There are five types with five radiographic features, including proximal femur bone loss, coxa vara, femoral shaft deformity, genu valgum, and hip arthritis. The intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility of this classification was assessed by four observers using the Cohen kappa statistic. The clinical outcome was evaluated using the criteria of Guille.ResultsAt a median follow‐up of 60 months (range 6–120), 205 patients (median 34.8 years old, range 18–73 years old) were categorized into the following five types: Type I 31.7%, Type II 30.2%, Type III 20.5%, Type IV 10.2%, and Type V 7.3%. The mean interobserver and intraobserver kappa scores were 0.85 (range 0.77–0.89) and 0.85 (range 0.79–0.92), respectively. For clinical outcomes, there was no significant difference in the postoperative Guille score for Type I patients (mean 9.01 ± 1.22). There was a significant increase in the postoperative Guille score in Type II, III, IV, and V, compared to the preoperative values (P < 0.01). For complications, two Type III patients reported pain, and one Type III patient had mild‐to‐moderate Trendelenburg gait. One Type IV patient had a mild Trendelenburg gait. And two Type V patients still had mild limping.ConclusionThis classification is reproducible and serves as a tool for evaluating and treating FD in the femur and adjacent bones. Therefore, we recommend this classification for the diagnosis and treatment of FD‐related deformities in the femur and adjacent bones.

Proximal femoral replacement in non-neoplastic revision hip arthroplasty : five-year results.

AimsWith increasing burden of revision hip arthroplasty (THA), one of the major challenges is the management of proximal femoral bone loss associated with previous multiple surgeries. Proximal femoral arthroplasty (PFA) has already been popularized for tumour surgeries. Our aim was to describe the outcome of using PFA in these demanding non-neoplastic cases.MethodsA retrospective review of 25 patients who underwent PFA for non-neoplastic indications between January 2009 and December 2015 was undertaken. Their clinical and radiological outcome, complication rates, and survival were recorded. All patients had the Stanmore Implant – Modular Endo-prosthetic Tumour System (METS).ResultsAt mean follow-up of 5.9 years, there were no periprosthetic fractures. Clearance of infection was achieved in 63.6% of cases. One hip was re-revised to pseudo arthroplasty for deep infection. Instability was noted in eight of the hips (32%), of which seven needed further surgery. Out of these eight hips with instability, five had preoperative infection. Deep infection was noted in five of the hips (20%), of which four were primarily revised for infection. One patient had aseptic loosening of the femoral component and awaits revision surgery. The Kaplan-Meier survivorship free of revision of any component for any reason was 72% (95% confidence interval (CI) 51.3% to 92.7%), and for revisions of only femoral component for any reason was 96% (95% CI 86.3% to 105.7%) at five years.ConclusionDislocation and infection remain the major cause for failure, particularly in patients with pre-existing infection. The use of dual mobility cups, silver-coated implants, and less aggressive postoperative rehabilitation regimens would possibly aid in the reduction of complications. PFA performed in patients with periprosthetic fracture seem to fair better. This study supports the judicious use of PFA in non-oncological revision hip arthroplasties, and that they be performed by experienced revision arthroplasty surgeons.Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(3):229–235.

Worse Outcomes Are Associated With Proximal Femoral Replacement Following Periprosthetic Joint Infection.

Proximal femoral replacements (PFRs) are often used in the setting of severe bone loss. As osteolysis has become less common, PFR may be used to address other causes of bone loss such as infection or periprosthetic fracture. The aim of this study is to investigate the clinical outcomes of PFR for non-neoplastic conditions. A retrospective review of 46 patients undergoing PFR at a single institution was performed. The electronic records were reviewed to extract relevant information including the reason for use of PFR, surgical variables, follow-up, and complications. Survivorship curves were generated and differences in survivorship were evaluated using the log-rank test. Radiographic evaluation was also performed. Using revision as an endpoint, the Kaplan-Meier analysis of the entire cohort demonstrated a survival rate of 74% at 1 year and 67% at 5 years. Patients with a preoperative diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection demonstrated the lowest survivorship with a failure rate of 47%. Furthermore, a high dislocation rate at 17.4% (n= 8) was observed. The use of dual-mobility articulation was effective in reducing dislocation. PFR is a valuable reconstructive option for patients with massive proximal femoral bone loss. This study demonstrates that patients with periprosthetic joint infection who undergo PFR reconstruction are at very high risk of subsequent failure, most commonly from reinfection and instability. The use of a dual-mobility articulation in association with PFR appears to help mitigate risk of subsequent dislocation.

Megaprostheses for the revision of infected hip arthroplasties with severe bone loss

BackgroundPeriprosthetic hip infections with severe proximal femoral bone loss may require the use of limb salvage techniques, but no agreement exists in literature regarding the most effective treatment. Aim of this study is to analyze the infection eradication rate and implant survival at medium-term follow-up in patients treated with megaprostheses for periprosthetic hip infections with severe bone loss.MethodsTwenty-one consecutive patients were retrospectively reviewed at a mean 64-month follow-up (24–120). Functional and pain scores, microbiological, radiological and intraoperative findings were registered. Kaplan Meier survival analysis and log rank test were used for infection free survival and implant survival analyses.ResultsThe infection eradication rate was 90.5%, with an infection free survival of 95.2% at 2 years (95%CI 70.7–99.3) and 89.6%(95%CI 64.3–97.3) at 5 years. Only two patients required major implant revisions for aseptic implant loosening. The most frequent complication was dislocation (38.1%). The major revision-free survival of implants was 95.2% (95%CI 70.7–99.3) at 2 years and 89.6% (95%CI 64.3–97.3) at 5 years. The overall implant survival was 83.35% (CI95% 50.7–93.94) at 2 and 5 years. Subgroup analyses (cemented versus cementless MPs, coated versus uncoated MPs) revealed no significant differences at log rank test, but its reliability was limited by the small number of patients included.ConclusionsProximal femoral arthroplasty is useful to treat periprosthetic hip infections with severe bone loss, providing good functional results with high infection eradication rates and rare major revisions at medium-term follow-up. No conclusions can be drawn on the role of cement and coatings.

Proximal Femur Replacement: Complexities and Learning Points

Proximal femur replacement (PFR) or Proximal femur reconstruction is a way of salvaging excess bone loss in proximal femur and yet providing a total hip replacement The article aims to highlight the technical difficulties and comorbidities associated with this complex procedure of proximal femur replacement. We retrospectively evaluated eight complex typical PFR cases performed under the care of same team of two surgeons, from 2013 to 2021, to highlight the various technical difficulties and complications that may be incurred during such a major salvage surgery. This was intended to help prepare the fellows, colleagues and future surgeons to have a plan of action and holistic approach towards the process. Average age of 87.4 years makes it a challenge both pre-operatively and post operatively in view of comorbidities existing in this age, apart from the technical difficulties of PFR. Complications observed were difficult rehabilitation, infection, pulmonary embolism deep vein thrombosis, dislocation, limb-length discrepancies and death. This is a level IV evidence case series with individual case description along with respective radiographs.

Impaction Bone Grafting for Severe Femoral Bone Loss: Surgical Technique in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty.

The specific steps to perform this procedure include (1) preoperative planning; (2) positioning of the patient and surgical approach; (3) cautious removal of the previous components; (4) preparation of the bone graft; (5) implantation of the appropriate IBG revision system, restoring bone loss from distal to proximal and utilizing metal mesh as needed; (6) implantation of the new stem, bypassing the defect; and (7) aftercare with protected weight-bearing in order to avoid subsidence of the stem and periprosthetic fracture. There are several alternatives to the IBG technique in the setting of revision total hip arthroplasty with extensive femoral bone loss. These alternatives include distal cementless fixation (either modular or nonmodular), a megaprosthesis, or an allograft-prosthesis composite. The rationale for use of the IBG technique is restoration of bone stock. Although this issue may be irrelevant in low-demand elderly patients, we believe it is of the utmost importance among young (i.e., <60 years old) and active patients. This technique is versatile enough to be utilized in different scenarios such as periprosthetic fracture, periprosthetic joint infection (2-stage protocols), and aseptic loosening. We have reported favorable clinical and radiographic outcomes for the treatment of both aseptic and septic femoral component loosening. In all cases, we utilized vancomycin-supplemented impacted cancellous allograft without evidence of secondary effects with regard to bone incorporation, nephrotoxicity, or allergic reactions. Although it was initially contraindicated, we further extended the indication for this reconstruction alternative to cases of circumferential proximal bone loss with non-neoplastic bone defects of ≤15 cm, utilizing encompassing metal mesh and a bypassing long stem. Recently, we reported on poorer outcomes following IBG compared with the use of uncemented modular stems for the treatment of type B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures, with a significantly higher rate of infection and implant breakage for the former treatment. Nowadays, we advocate the use of this technique in young, active patients (i.e., <60 years old) with a femoral bone defect Paprosky grade IIIB or IV, in which reconstitution of bone stock is crucial to avoid an eventual implant failure in the long term. This technique requires an experienced team. This procedure should be avoided in the presence of active periprosthetic joint infection.The gluteus maximus tendon should be detached to avoid tensioning the sciatic nerve and to decrease the chance of periprosthetic femoral fracture.Massive bone loss can jeopardize correct implant orientation and restoration of biomechanics. In this scenario, surgeons might consider the intercondylar axis as a guide for femoral version.Try to avoid (if possible) trochanteric or extended trochanteric osteotomy because proximal bone stock is necessary to contain the bone grafts. In some cases, such as those in which the removal of the stem is difficult, especially with certain uncemented stem designs, an extended trochanteric osteotomy must be performed. Whether or not a cemented stem is removed, it is mandatory to remove all remaining cement in the femoral canal.Preoperative templating is a necessity to reconstruct leg length. Accurately determining the length of the mesh is the most important step to avoid shortening or overlengthening of the lower extremity.Approximately 10 cm of circumferential metal mesh should be fixed with 3 to 5 double cerclage metal wires to the remaining bone. The new femoral stem should bypass extend beyond the mesh for approximately 5 cm. If the stem does not bypass the mesh, there is an increased risk of postoperative fracture.In order to decrease the risk of intraoperative femoral fracture, the distal aspect of the femur should be secured with cerclage wires, and the proximal aspect of the femur should also be protected with cerclage wires over the mesh. As in any other complex femoral revision procedure, torsional forces in the supracondylar zone should be avoided, especially during trial or stem reduction maneuvers.Always utilize a bone graft mixed with antibiotic powder.Retrograde cementation must be done with cement that is in a more liquid state than in primary total hip arthroplasty. PO = postoperativePMMA = polymethyl methacrylateIV = intravenousLMWH = low molecular weight heparinDVT/EP = deep vein thrombosis and extended prophylaxis.

Clinical and radiological outcomes of combined modular prothesis and cortical strut for revision proximal femur in giant cell tumor of bone patients.

Femoral bone deficiency is a challenging problem in revision proximal femoral replacement. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the clinical and radiological outcomes of revision proximal femoral replacement as a salvage treatment for severe bone loss after oncologic proximal replacement surgery in patient with benign giant cell tumor of bone. 16 patients (6 men and 10 women) were included in this retrospective study, with a mean age of 46.6year at the time of revision surgery. All patients underwent revision proximal femoral replacement with the use of modular prosthesis and cortical strut allografts. The modified Harris Hip Score, Short Form 36, and musculoskeletal Tumor Society Score were used for patient evaluation. Regular follow-up was performed to evaluate the recurrence and metastases rate, limb function, and long-term complications of patients. The average follow-up was 46.3months (range, 26-75months), during which there was no local recurrence and metastases of patient. At the latest follow-up, the mean modified Harris Hip Score was 70.6 points, which was significantly improved compared with that of preoperative (p < 0.05). The final follow-up results of Short Form 36, Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Score, and limb-length discrepancy were also significantly improved compared to that of preoperative (p < 0.05). At the latest follow-up, the implanted femoral stems were all stable and all cortical strut allografts were also incorporated to their own bone. Using modular prosthesis and cortical strut allografts in revision, proximal femur replacement is an acceptable procedure for relatively young patient with severe proximal femoral bone loss after oncologic surgery with benign giant cell tumor of bone. More attentions should be paid to reduce the risk of complications in these complex reconstructions.

Survivorship and clinical outcomes of proximal femoral replacement in non-neoplastic primary and revision total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review

BackgroundSeveral studies have evaluated the survivorship and clinical outcomes of proximal femoral replacement (PFR) in complex primary and revision total hip arthroplasty with severe proximal femoral bone loss; however, there remains no consensus on the overall performance of this implant. We therefore performed a systematic review of the literature in order to examine survivorship and complication rates of PFR usage.MethodsA systematic review of the literature according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines was performed. A comprehensive search of PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was conducted for English articles using various combinations of keywords.ResultsIn all, 18 articles met the inclusion criteria. A total of 578 PFR were implanted. The all-cause reoperation-free survivorship was 76.6%. The overall complication rate was 27.2%. Dislocation was the most common complication observed and the most frequent reason for reoperation with an incidence of 12.8 and 7.6%, respectively. Infection after PFR had an incidence of 7.6% and a reoperation rate of 6.4%. The reoperation rate for aseptic loosening of the implant was 5.9%. Overall, patients had improved outcomes as documented by postoperative hip scores.ConclusionPFR usage have a relatively high complication rate, however, it remains an efficacious treatment option in elderly patients with osteoporotic bone affected by severe proximal femoral bone loss. Modular designs have shown reduced dislocations rate and higher survivorship free from dislocation. However, PFR should only be used as salvage procedure when no other reconstruction options are available.

The Wagner Modular (S2) Prosthesis for Proximal Femur Bone Loss ; Prospective Study of 19 Cases

Background: Wagner proximal femur prosthesis is the versatile modular implant. Study Design: Prospective study Setting: Department of Orthopaedic Surgery Dow University of Health Sciences / Civil Hospital Karachi, from January 2013 to December 2019. Methodology: Total 19 patients of both genders with proximal femur bone loss due to tumor, implant failure for proximal femur fixation, comminuted intertrochanteric fracture, and failed arthroplasty included in the study. After taking written informed consent, detailed demographics including age, gender, indication of wagner prosthesis, and wagner stem type were recorded. Among all the patients 11 patients received total hip replacement and 8 patients received bipolar. Complications associated with procedure were recorded. Outcomes were assessed by Merle D Aubgine scale. Results: Total 19 patients were included in the study who were operated with wagner prosthesis for proximal femur bone deficit problems. 7 (37%) patients were male and 12 (67%) were female , between age of 16 to 70. 13 (68%) patient have proximal femur problem on right side and 6(32%) patient on left side .10 Patient have proximal femur fixation problems and 9 with proximal femur tumor. Modular wagner prosthesis used in all patients . Per-operative one (5%) patient have perforation of cortex and One (5%)patient posterior hip dislocation on next day . Two (11%) patient had per-operative fracture . Maximum follow-up is from 6.3 years to minimum 6 months. One patient with metastasis died within four weeks of surgery. Outcome measured with modified Merle D Aubgine scale showed no excellent , good in 15(79%) , fair 3 (16%), poor 1(5%). Conclusion: Wagner proximal femur modular implant is a versatile implant for proximal femur fixation failure and after proximal femur resection in tumor patients. It is modular with variable options to make stable hip joint. It is cheap as comparative to proximal femur replacement implant for tumor. Keywords: Implant failure, Proximal femur, Tumor, Wagner implant.

Dual mobility cups associated with proximal femoral replacement in nontumoral indications: Results and complications

IntroductionReconstruction of extensive proximal femoral bone loss is a major challenge during total hip arthroplasty (THA). Proximal femoral replacement (PFR), initially used for bone tumors, is an alternative to allograft-prosthetic composite reconstruction. However, PFRs present a high complication rate, particularly related to dislocation. Moreover, dual mobility cups (DMCs) are effective in preventing dislocation, and no study has yet assessed their association with PFRs. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess the dislocation and complication rates in THA using PFRs with DMCs. HypothesisThe use of a DMC decreases the dislocation rate associated with PFRs in nontumoral indications. MethodsFrom 2008 to 2017, 66 PFRs associated with a DMC (40 women, mean age=71 years [26–94]) were included in our total joint registry and retrospectively reviewed. The main indications were complex periprosthetic and pertrochanteric fractures (26 THAs, 40%), aseptic loosening (22 THAs, 33%) and periprosthetic joint infections (18 THAs, 27%). A single design of PFR implant was used (Global Modular Replacement System (GMRS), Stryker, Mahwah, NJ, USA) with an uncemented stem in 54 THAs (82%). ResultsEighteen complications (27%) were reported at a mean follow-up of 4.6 years [2–10]: 5 dislocations (7.5%), 9 periprosthetic joint infections (13.6%), 2 aseptic loosening (3%) and 2 femur fractures (3%). Overall survivorship at 5 years was 72% (95% CI: 58–82). Survivorship free from dislocation was 94% (95% CI: 85–98) at 1 year. The mean Harris Hip Score was 70±16.4 [26–100] at latest follow-up. ConclusionThe use of DMCs limits the risk of PFR dislocation, in comparison to other series in the literature that used large femoral heads, without compromising implant survivorship. In addition, DMCs make it possible to overcome the potential risks of mechanical failure associated with constrained acetabular components. Level of EvidenceIV; retrospective cohort.

Proximal femoral reconstruction with modular megaprostheses in non-oncological patients

IntroductionMultiple revision hip arthroplasties and critical trauma might cause severe bone loss that requires proximal femoral replacement (PFR). The aim of this retrospective study was to analyse complication- and revision-free survivals of patients who received modular megaprostheses in an attempt to reconstruct massive non-neoplastic bone defects of the proximal femur.Questions/purposes(1) What were general complication rates and revision-free survivals following PFR? (2) What is the incidence of complication specific survivals? (3) What were risk factors leading to a diminished PFR survival?Materials and methodsTwenty-eight patients with sufficient follow-up after receiving a modular proximal femoral megaprosthesis were identified. The indications for PFR included prosthetic joint infection (PJI), periprosthetic fracture, aseptic loosening, non-union and critical femoral fracture. Complications were grouped according to the ISOLS-classification of segmental endoprosthetic failure by Henderson et al.ResultsOverall, the complication-free survival was 64.3% at one year, 43.2% at five years and 38.4% at ten years, with 16 patients (57%) suffering at least one complication. Complications were dislocation in eight patients (29%), PJI in 6 patients (21%), periprosthetic fracture in five patients (18%), and aseptic loosening in six patients (21%). Prosthesis stem cementation showed a lower risk for revision in a cox proportional hazard model (95% CI 0.04–0.93, HR 0.2, p = 0.04).ConclusionPFR with modular megaprostheses represents a viable last resort treatment with high complication rates for patients with severe proximal femoral bone loss due to failed arthroplasty or critical fractures. In revision arthroplasty settings, PFR cementation should be advocated in cases of impaired bone quality.

Cephalomedullary Nail as a Definitive Antibiotic Spacer for Multidrug Resistant Periprosthetic Infection of a Proximal Femoral Endoprosthesis

Introduction: Periprosthetic hip infections in the setting of massive proximal femoral bone loss pose a complex challenge to both patients and arthroplasty surgeons alike. As these patients are often multiply revised and can be infected with multidrug resistant organisms, the likelihood for a successful outcome with the gold-standard 2-stage revision is significantly diminished, and definitive management is often achieved with amputation or an antibiotic eluting cement spacer. With reduced bone stock and poor soft tissue tension, creation of such a spacer to not only provide local drug delivery, but also achieve length, stability, and confer some degree of mobility to these patients is technically demanding, and has been fraught with mechanical complications in recent literature. Materials and Methods: The purpose of this article is to report on a novel technique for definitive management of prosthetic joint infection in the setting of massive proximal femoral bone loss. This is a case of a 61-year-old medically complex patient with an infected proximal femoral endoprosthesis colonized with multidrug resistant bacteria, treated with creation of a novel articulating antibiotic eluting massive proximal femoral cement spacer with a cephalomedullary nail as definitive management. Results: In our patient we have had successful suppression of his life-threatening infection and enabled partial weight bearing on the affected extremity at 1 year postoperatively. Conclusion: Articulating antibiotic eluting cement proximal femoral spacer with a cephalomedullary nail is a viable surgical option for definitive management of prosthetic joint infection in the setting of massive proximal femoral bone loss.

Management of peri-prosthetic joint infection and severe bone loss after total hip arthroplasty using a long-stemmed cemented custom-made articulating spacer (CUMARS)

BackgroundThere is little evidence on techniques for management of peri-prosthetic infection (PJI) in the context of severe proximal femoral bone loss. Custom-made articulating spacers (CUMARS) utilising cemented femoral stems as spacers was described providing better bone support and longer survival compared to conventional articulating spacers. We retrospectively report our experience managing PJI by adaptation of this technique using long cemented femoral stems where bone loss precludes use of standard stems.MethodsPatients undergoing 1st stage revision for infected primary and revision THA using a cemented long stem (> 205 mm) and standard all-polyethylene acetabulum between 2011 and 2018 were identified. After excluding other causes of revision (fractures or aseptic loosening), Twenty-one patients remained out of total 721 revisions. Medical records were assessed for demographics, initial microbiological and operative treatment, complications, eradication of infection and subsequent operations. 2nd stage revision was undertaken in the presence of pain or subsidence.ResultsTwenty-one patients underwent 1st stage revision with a cemented long femoral stem. Mean follow up was 3.9 years (range 1.7–7.2). Infection was eradicated in 15 (71.4%) patients. Two patients (9.5%) required repeat 1st stage and subsequently cleared their infection. Three patients (14.3%) had chronic infection and are on long term suppressive antibiotics. One patient (4.8%) was lost to follow up before 2 years. Complications occurred in seven patients (33%) during or after 1st stage revision. Where infection was cleared, 2nd stage revision was undertaken in 12 patients (76.5%) at average of 9 months post 1st stage. Five (23.8%) CUMARS constructs remained in-situ at an average of 3.8 years post-op (range 2.6–5.1).ConclusionsOur technique can be used in the most taxing of reconstructive scenarios allowing mobility, local antibiotic delivery, maintenance of leg length and preserves bone and soft tissue, factors not afforded by alternative spacer options.

Revision total hip arthroplasty in patients with femoral bone loss using tapered rectangular femoral stem: a minimum 10 years' follow-up.

Revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) remains a significant challenge when there is severe femoral bone loss. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical and radiographic outcomes of revision THA in patients with femoral bone loss treated with Zweymüller SLR-Plus stem. A retrospective review of 82 patients who underwent revision THA using tapered rectangular femoral stem between 1997 and 2007 was undertaken. Of the 82 patients, 9 patients were lost to follow-up and were excluded from the study. The most common reason for revision was aseptic loosening (92%), periprosthetic femur fracture (5%), and infection (3%). Bone loss was categorised preoperatively according to the Paprosky classification. The mean clinical follow-up was 14 years (range 10-19 years). Their mean age at the time of index surgery was 54.7 ± 15.3 (range 30-82) years. The mean Harris Hip Score was significantly improved at final follow-up (68.1 ±10.3) compared with that before the revision surgery (30.4 ± 7.7) (p < 0.0001). Of the 75 stems, 69 (92%) stems were radiographically stable at the last evaluation. Among the 69 stems, 64 hips (85%) had radiographic evidence of bone ingrowth and 5 (5%) had stable fibrous fixation of the stem. Among the 7 hips that were re-revised, 5 hips were re-revised for aseptic loosening, whereas 2 were re-revised for an infection. Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis, with removal of the stem for any cause as the endpoint, revealed that the 15-year rate of survival of the components was 90% (95% CI, 0.83-0.97). Revision THA in patients with proximal femoral bone loss using Zweymüller SLR-Plus stem led to a high rate of osseointegration of the stem and good clinical results at long-term follow-up.

Using personalized 3D printed Titanium sleeve-prosthetic composite for reconstruction of severe segmental bone loss of proximal femur in revision total hip arthroplasty

Rationale:Allograft-prosthetic composites (APCs) and proximal femoral replacement have been applied for reconstruction of severe segmental femoral bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty. The outcomes are encouraging but the complication rate is relatively high. Considering the high complication rates and mixed results of APCs and megaprosthesis, we presented a case using personalized 3D printed Titanium sleeve-prosthetic composite for reconstruction of segmental bone defect.Patient concerns:A 73-year-old woman presented to the emergency department on account of acute severe pain of the left hip without history of trauma. She had undergone a cemented total hip arthroplasty for osteonecrosis of femoral head at the left side in 2000. In 2013 she underwent a cemented revision total hip arthroplasty as a result of aseptic loosening of hip prosthesis. She denied obvious discomfort prior to this episode since the revision surgery in 2013.Diagnosis:According to the clinical history, imaging and physical examination, we confirmed the diagnosis of severe segmental bone loss of proximal femur and fracture of prosthetic stem. The femoral bone defect was evaluated using the Paprosky classification system and rated as Type 3B, and the acetabular bone defect was rated as Type 2C.Interventions:In this study, we present the first case of severe segmental bone loss of proximal femur in revision total hip arthroplasty that was successfully treated using personalized 3D printed Titanium sleeve-prosthetic compositeOutcomes:At the 2-year follow-up, the patient was symptom free with a Harris Hip Score of 91. Radiographs showed excellent osteointegration between the interface of sleeve-prosthetic composite and the host bone, with no signs of implant loosening or subsidence.Lessons:Despite the absence of long term results of 3D printed Titanium sleeve-prosthetic composite reconstruction, the good clinical and radiological outcome at 2 years follow up implied its potential role for reconstruction of segmental femoral bone defect in revision THA.