Management of Severe Bone Defects in Femoral Revision following Total Hip Arthroplasty.

Yicheng Li, Li Cao
{"title":"Management of Severe Bone Defects in Femoral Revision following Total Hip Arthroplasty.","authors":"Yicheng Li, Li Cao","doi":"10.5371/hp.2024.36.2.101","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Treatment of femoral bone defects continues to be a challenge in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA); therefore, meticulous preoperative evaluation of patients and surgical planning are required. This review provides a concise synopsis of the etiology, classification, treatment strategy, and prosthesis selection in relation to femoral bone loss in revision THA. A search of literature was conducted for identification of research articles related to classification of bone loss, management of femoral revision, and comparison of different types of stems. Findings of a thorough review of the included articles were as follows: (1) the Paprosky classification system is used most often when defining femoral bone loss, (2) a primary-length fully coated monoblock femoral component is recommended for treatment of types I or II bone defects, (3) use of an extensively porouscoated stem and a modular fluted tapered stem is recommended for management of types III or IV bone defects, and (4) use of an impaction grafting technique is another option for improvement of bone stock, and allograft prosthesis composite and proximal femoral replacement can be applied by experienced surgeons, in selected cases, as a final salvage solution. Stems with a tapered design are gradually replacing components with a cylindrical design as the first choice for femoral revision; however, further confirmation regarding the advantages and disadvantages of modular and nonmodular stems will be required through conduct of higher-level comparative studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":73239,"journal":{"name":"Hip & pelvis","volume":"36 2","pages":"101-107"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11162874/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hip & pelvis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5371/hp.2024.36.2.101","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Treatment of femoral bone defects continues to be a challenge in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA); therefore, meticulous preoperative evaluation of patients and surgical planning are required. This review provides a concise synopsis of the etiology, classification, treatment strategy, and prosthesis selection in relation to femoral bone loss in revision THA. A search of literature was conducted for identification of research articles related to classification of bone loss, management of femoral revision, and comparison of different types of stems. Findings of a thorough review of the included articles were as follows: (1) the Paprosky classification system is used most often when defining femoral bone loss, (2) a primary-length fully coated monoblock femoral component is recommended for treatment of types I or II bone defects, (3) use of an extensively porouscoated stem and a modular fluted tapered stem is recommended for management of types III or IV bone defects, and (4) use of an impaction grafting technique is another option for improvement of bone stock, and allograft prosthesis composite and proximal femoral replacement can be applied by experienced surgeons, in selected cases, as a final salvage solution. Stems with a tapered design are gradually replacing components with a cylindrical design as the first choice for femoral revision; however, further confirmation regarding the advantages and disadvantages of modular and nonmodular stems will be required through conduct of higher-level comparative studies.

全髋关节置换术后股骨翻修中严重骨缺损的处理。
股骨头缺损的治疗仍然是翻修全髋关节置换术(THA)中的一项挑战;因此,需要对患者进行细致的术前评估并制定手术计划。本综述简要概述了翻修全髋关节置换术中股骨头缺损的病因、分类、治疗策略和假体选择。我们对文献进行了检索,以确定与骨质疏松的分类、股骨翻修的管理以及不同类型骨干的比较相关的研究文章。对所收录文章的全面审查结果如下:(1)在定义股骨头缺损时,最常使用的是Paprosky分类系统;(2)在治疗I型或II型骨缺损时,推荐使用初级长度的全涂层整体股骨组件;(3)在治疗III型或IV型骨缺损时,推荐使用广泛多孔涂层柄和模块化凹槽锥形柄、(4) 使用撞击移植技术是改善骨量的另一种选择,有经验的外科医生可在选定的病例中使用异体移植复合假体和股骨近端假体,作为最终的挽救方案。锥形设计的股骨柄正逐渐取代圆柱形设计的组件,成为股骨翻修的首选;然而,模块化和非模块化股骨柄的优缺点还需要通过更高级别的对比研究来进一步确认。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信