Rico MG, Domínguez HV, Muller JA, Delgado CEA, Miranda RJA, Montoya CR

Language: Spanish
References: 29
Page: 70-79
PDF size: 235.14 Kb.

ABSTRACT

The need in resolving massive bone losses in hip region caused by tumors, infections, trauma or failed arthroplasties in 17 years of the Bone Tumors Department of the National Rehabilitation Institute, Mexico City, and data obtained from different studies: 1) Biomechanic study of an unconventional hip arthroplasty system, 2) Tridimensional model of a human femur by the finite element method, 3) Biomechanical analysis of a system bone-implant for reconstruction of the proximal third of the femur by the finite element method, 4) Incidence of tumor and pseudotumor bone and soft tissue lesions of the hip, generated the project of designing an unconventional interlocked hip arthroplasty system for femur reconstruction. Two processes were done for adequate manufacturing and dimensioning: Anthropomorphometric study of Mexican femora; 2) Design of an unconventional hip arthroplasty system with the following characteristics: first, the arthroplasty system is constituted by an intramedullar stem, is fixated to femur with interlocking screws, this fixation method was inspired from the design of intramedullar nails of Dr. Fernando Colchero Rosas. The system has a second fixation system in the femur cut region, resolved by a fenestrated support introduced in the cortical wall. Once data was processed, the need for manufacturing 2 models was determined: 1) One for the proximal 11 cm of the femur and 2) other for the 12 distal cm. The height of interlocking screws, 2 models of intracortical proximal support (one fixated and one fixable with an expansible screw), were designed. Diameter, length of the stems, size of spacers and supports were determined for adequate interlocking fixation. We designed the instruments for assembling, impaction and orientation of the arthroplasty system. The system was presented to the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property, at March 15, 1996 and the patent was conceded April 19, 2007 (#245717).

REFERENCES

1. Actualización en Cirugía Ortopédica y Traumatológica 3. Editorial Garsi 1992; 199-200.

2. American Academy Orthopedic Surgeons. Annual Meeting 1996; 6(3): 128-31.

3. Fabroni HR: Cirugía de las fracturas y de reemplazos osteoarticulares. Editorial Reflejos 1977; 466.

4. Flores VM, Nájera MA: Megaprótesis para el extremo proximal del fémur. Rev Mex Ortop 1994; 8: 2.

5. Gómez GF, Robles A: Reunión de Consenso Prótesis, S.L.A. 1993.

6. Instructional Course Lectures. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons 1992; 119-144, 293-300-317-327.

7. Kenan S, Lwis MM: Lib salvage in pediatric surgery: The use of expandable prosthesis. Orthop Clin North Am 1991; 22: 1.

8. Lewis M, Chekofsky KM: Proximal femoral replacement for neoplasic disease. En: How medica surgical techniques (s.1) Howmedica Inc. 1982.

9. Shubert JJ: Proximal femoral replacement arthroplasty en How medica surgical techniques (s.1) Howmedica Inc. 1979.

10. Springfield D: Introduction to limb-salvage surgery for sarcomas. Orthop Clin North Am 1991: 220-6.

11. Yamamuro T: Kyocera Orthopaedic Symposium: New developments for lim salvage in musculoskeletal tumors. Kyoto, Japan. Springer Verlag. 1989.

12. Theologis TN, Epps H, Latz K et al: Isolated fractures of the lesser trochanter in children. Injury 1997; 28(5-6): 363–64.

13. Bonshahi AY, Knowles D, Hodgson SP: Isolated lesser trochanter fractures in elderly a case for prophylactic DHS fixation. Department of Orthopaedics, Royal Bolton Hospital, Minerva Road, Farnworth. May 2003.

14. Bosquet M, Burssens A, Mulier JC: Long term follow-up results of a femoral megaprosthesis. Arch Orthop Traumat Surg 1980; 97: 299-304.

15. Ilyas R, Pant A, Kurar PG, Moreau DA. Younge: Modular megaprosthesis for proximal femoral tumors. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 2002; 26: 170-3.L PAPER.

16. Bickels J, Meller I, Henshaw RM, Malawer MM: Reconstruction of hip stability after proximal and total femur reconstruction. Clin Orthop 2000; 375: 218-30.

17. Enneking WF, Dunham W, Gebhardt MC, Malawar M, Pritchard DJ: A system for the functional evaluation of reconstructive procedures after surgical treatment of tumors of the musculoskeletal system. Clin Orthop 1993; 286: 241-6.

18. Masterson EL, Ferracini R, Griffin AM, Wunder JS, Bell RS: Capsular replacement with synthetic mesh: effectiveness in preventing postoperative dislocation after wide resection of proximal femoral tumors and prosthetic reconstruction. J Arthroplasty 1998; 13: 860-6.

19. Rico MG, Linares GLMl, Domínguez HV: Prótesis tumoral no convencional bloqueada para cadera. Revista Mexicana de Ortopedia y Traumatología 1997; 11(6): 385-8.

20. Linares GLM, Rico MG: Incidencia de lesiones tumorales y pseudotumorales, óseas y de partes blandas de la cadera y sus alrededores. Rev Mex Ortop Traum 1998; 12(5): 429-31.

21. Domínguez HV: Tesis doctoral SEPI-ESIME. Optimización del componente femoral de una prótesis no convencional bloqueada para cadera. Noviembre de 2000. México, D.F.

22. Domínguez HV, Rico MG, Urriolagoitia Calderón G: Análisis de una prótesis no convencional bloqueada para cadera. Rev Mex Ing Biomed 2004; 24(1): 37-44.

23. Mess D, Barmada R: Clinical and motion studies of the Bateman bipolar prosthesis in osteonecrosis of the hip. Clin Orthop1990; 251: 44-7.

24. Domínguez HV, Rico MG, Urriolagoitia CG: Optimización del diseño del componente femoral de una prótesis no convencional bloqueada para cadera. Rev Mex Ing Biomed 2004; 25(2): 144-59.

25. Widmer KH, Robinson RP, Simonian PT, Gradisor IM, Ching RP: Joint motion and surface contact area related to component position in total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1997; 79: 140-6.

26. Donati D, Zavatta ME, Gozzi S, Giacomini L, Campanacci M, Mercuri: Modular prosthetic replacement of the proximal femur after resection of a bone tumour. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2001; 83: 1156-60.

27. Morris HG, Capanna R, Del Ben M, Campanacci D: Prosthetic reconstruction of the proximal femur after resection for bone tumours. J Arthroplasty 1995; 10: 293-9.

28. Sumner DR, Galante JO: Determinants of stress shielding: design versus materials versus interface. Clin Orthop 1992; 274: 202-12.

29. Domínguez HV, Carbajal RMF, Rico MG, Urriolagoitia C, et al: Biomecánica de un fémur sometido a carga. Desarrollo de un modelo tridimensional por medio del método del elemento finito. Rev Mex Ortop Traumatol 1999; 13(8): 633-8.