Alvarado SJC, Suárez DR, Negrete CJ, Ramos MJF, Jiménez AJM

Language: Spanish
References: 18
Page: 58-62
PDF size: 223.62 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction. We present the preliminary, short-term results of a cohort study of revision THA focused on aseptic loosening and aimed at assessing the metadiaphyseal bone ingrowth biological response of an uncemented femoral implant with an extensive porous coating. Material and methods. The clinical, X-ray and personal satisfaction outcomes (SF-36) of four patients were assessed. We had performed four exchange THAs due to a diagnosis of clinical and radiographic aseptic prosthetic loosening, with symptoms of anterior thigh pain. Three THAs were primary and one was a hemiarthroplasty. Mean follow-up after the prosthetic exchange was 41.5 weeks. Results. As of postoperative week six, a radiographic improvement of the bone appearance was seen due to mineralization and decrease in the radiolucent areas in the interfaces. As of week 20, variable degrees of bone ingrowth were seen. No femoral subsidence has occurred and anterior thigh pain was relieved in all cases. Discussion. Stem size, stiffness, the geometry and the extension of the porous coating seem to affect bone remodeling. Implants with an extensive porous-coated surface seem to assure a reliable, long-term fixation and provide a circumferential seal against debris.

REFERENCES

1. Paprosky WG: Revision total hip arthroplasty: Monograph series. Am J Orthop 2000; 49: 119-30.

2. Sim FH: Instructional Course Lectures. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 2001; 50.

3. Navarrete MJ, Carrera CL, Navarro QA: Vástago no cementado encerrojado en cirugía de revisión: Resultados preliminares. Rev Mex Ortop Traumatol 2003; 17(3): 122-7.

4. Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD: The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36)I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992; 30(6): 473-83.

5. Amstutz HC, Campbell P, Kossovsky N, Clarke IC: Mechanism and clinical significance of wear debris -induced osteolysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1992; (276): 7-18.

6. Charnley J: Low friction hip arthroplasty. Barcelona, Salvat, 1979: 115-342.

7. Dorr LD: Total hip replacement using APR system. Tech Orthop 1986; 3: 22.

8. Dorr LD, Faugere MC, Mackel AM, Gruen TA, Bognar B, Malluche HH: Structural and cellular assessment of bone quality of proximal femur. Bone 1993; 14(3): 231-42.

9. Fernández FM, Busto VJM, Roure J, et al: Experiencia preliminar con el sistema ABG de artroplastia total de cadera. Rev Mex Ortop Traumatol 2003; 17(3): 3-8.

10. Gruen TA, McNeice GM, Amstutz HC: «Modes of failure» of cemented stem-type femoral components: a radiographic analysis of loosening. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1979; (141): 17-27.

11. Guerado P, De la Varga S, Díaz VM, et al: Resultados del nuevo vástago femoral no cementado meridian. Rev Mex Ortop Traumatol 2002; 46(6): 499-504.

12. Hernández DV: Cirugía ortopédica y traumatológica: la cadera. Madrid, Panamericana, 1997: 269-350.

13. Johnston RC, Fitzgerald RH Jr, Harris WH, Poss R, Muller ME, Sledge CB: Clinical and radiographic evaluation of total hip replacement a standard system of terminology for reporting results. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1990; 72(2): 161-8.

14. Engh CA, Hooten JP Jr, Zettl-Schaffer KF, Ghaffarpour M, McGovern TF, Macalino GE, Zicat BA: Porous-coated total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1994; 298: 89-96.

15. Noble PC, Alexander JW, Lindahl LJ, Yew DT, Granberry WM, Tullos HS: The anatomic basis of femoral component design. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1988; (235): 148-65.

16. Sim FH: Instructional Course. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Lectures. 2001;2(50) 2:15-31.

17. Sledge CB: Techniques in orthopaedic surgery and traumatology. New York, 1st edition Marban, 1999.

18. Spotorno L, Romagnoli S: Indications for the CLS stem, The CLS uncemented total hip replacement system. Berna Protek 1991: 4.