To address femoral bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) we developed a technique involving impaction allografting with intramedullary mesh moulded around the revision stem, to prevent excessive cement penetration of the allograft. The length of the revision stem was determined by the extent of femoral bone loss.
Between 1986 and 1998, 32 such procedures were undertaken on 28 patients. The mean pre-operative HHS for function was 22 (range 5 to 42), improving to 41 (range 12 to 47) at final follow-up. Only 1 patient presented with aseptic loosening after revision at 147 months (12.2 years). The 12.5 year survivorship for the stem was 92.8%.
The technique has provided stable and durable reconstruction, with good new bone formation visible radiologically. It is technically demanding and time consuming, but it avoids the previously published problem of massive subsidence within the bone graft.
Della ValleC.J., PaproskyW.G.. The femur in revision total hip arthroplasty; Evaluation and classification.Clin Orthop Relat Res2004; 420: 55–62.
2.
Della ValleC.J., PaproskyW.G.. Classification and an algorithmic approach to the reconstruction of femoral deficiency in revision total hip arthroplasty.J Bone Joint Surg Am2003; 85 (Suppl 4): 1–6.
3.
BarrackR.L., FolguerasA.J.. Revision total hip arthroplasty: the femoral component.J Am Acad Orthop Surg1995; 3: 79–85.
4.
SalemyrM.F., SkoldenbergO.G., BodenH.G., AhlT.E., AdolphsonP.Y.. Good results with an uncemented proximally HA-coated stem in hip revision surgery: 62 hips followed for 2–13 years.Acta Orthop2008; 79: 184–93.
5.
OrnsteinE., AtroshiI., FranzenH., JohnssonR., SandquistP., SundbergM.. Early complication after one hundred and forty-four consecutive hip revision with impacted morsellized allograft bone and cement.J Bone Joint Surg Am2002; 84: 1323–8.
6.
SotereanosN., SeweckeJ., RaukerG.J., DeMeoP.J., BargiotasK., WohlrabD.. Revision total hip arthroplasty with a custom cementless stem with distal cross-locking screws. Early results in femora with large proximal segmental deficiencies.J Bone Joint Surg Am2006; 88: 1079–84.
7.
ReikeråsO., GundersonR.B.. Excellent results with femoral revision surgery using an extensively hydroxyapatite-coated stem: 59 patients followed to 10–16 years.Acta Orthop2006; 77: 98–103.
8.
BlackleyH.R., DavisA.M., HutchisonC.R., GrossA.E.. Proximal femoral allografts for reconstruction of bone stock in revision arthroplasty of the hip. A nine to fifteen-year follow-up.J Bone Joint Surg Am2001; 83: 346–54.
9.
DonatiD., GiacominiS., GozziE., MercuriM.. Proximal femur reconstruction by an allograft prosthesis composite.Clin Orthop Relat Res2002; 394: 192–200.
10.
SimonJ.P., FowlerJ.L., GieG.A., LingR.S.M., TimperlyA.J.. Impaction cancellous grafting of the femur in cemented total hip revision arthroplasty.J Bone Joint Surg Br1991; 73 (Suppl 1): 73.
11.
GieG.A., LinderL., LingR.S., SimonJ.P., SlooffT.J., TimperleyA.J.. Impacted cancellous allografts and cement for revision total hip arthroplasty.J Bone Joint Surg Br1993; 75: 14–21.
12.
EldridgeJ., SmithE., HubbleM., WhitehouseS.L., LearmonthI.D.. Massive early subsidence following femoral impaction grafting.J Arthroplasty1997; 12: 535–40.
13.
HaddadF.S., SpangehlM.J., MasriB.A., GarbuzD.S., DuncanC.P.. Circumferential allograft replacement of the proximal femur. A critical analysis.Clin Orthop Relat Res2000; 371: 98–107.
14.
EltingJ.J., MikhailW.E., ZicatB.A., HubbellJ.C., LaneL.E., HouseB.. Preliminary report of impaction grafting for exchange femoral arthroplasty.Clin Orthop Relat Res1995; 319: 159–67.
15.
HassaballaM., MehendaleS., PoniatowskiS., KalantzisG., SmithE., LearmonthI.D.. Subsidence of the stem after impaction bone grafting for revision hip replacement using irradiated bone.J Bone Joint Surg Br2009; 91: 37–43.
16.
MastersonE.L., MasriB.A., DuncanC.P.. The cement mantle in the Exeter impaction allografting technique. A cause for concern.J Arthroplasty1997; 12: 759–64.
17.
Van BiezenF.C., ten HaveB.L., VerhaarJ.A.. Impaction bone-grafting of severely defective femora in revision total hip surgery: 21 hips followed for 41–85 months.Acta Orthop Scand2000; 71: 135–42.
18.
Van KleunenJ.P., AnbariK.K., VuD., GarinoJ.P.. Impaction allografting for massive femoral defects in revision hip arthroplasty using collared textured stems.J Arthroplasty2006; 21: 362–71.
19.
KarrholmJ., HultmarkP., CarlssonL., MalchauH.. Subsidence of a non-polished stem in revisions of the hip using impaction allograft. Evaluation with radiostereometry and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry.J Bone Joint Surg Br1999; 81: 135–42.
20.
LeopoldS.S., BergerR.A., RosenbergA.G., JacobsJ.J., QuigleyL.R., GalanteJ.O.. Impaction allografting with cement for revision of the femoral component. A minimum four-year follow-up study with use of a precoated femoral stem.J Bone Joint Surg Am1999; 81: 1080–92.
21.
De RoeckN.J., DrabuK.J.. Impaction bone grafting using freeze-dried allograft in revision hip arthroplasty.J Arthroplasty2001; 16: 201–61.
22.
KruppR.J., MalkaniA.L., CrawfordC.H., CapelloW.N., FeinbergJ.R., BakerD.. Impaction grafting for femoral component revision using a non-polished bead-blasted chrome cobalt stem_Average 8 1/2-year follow-up.J Arthroplasty2006; 21: 1180–6.
23.
HarrisW.H.. Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. A end results study using a new method of result evaluation.J Bone Joint Surg Am1969; 51: 737–55.
24.
PierchonF., MigaudH., DuquennoyA.. Reconstruction of femoral bone stock in loose total hip replacement stems.Acta Orthop Belg1993; 59: 278–86.
25.
GruenT.A., McNeiceG.M., AmstutzH.C.. “Modes of failure” of cemented stem-type femoral components: a radiographic analysis of loosening.Clin Orthop Relat Res1979; 141: 17–27.
26.
MalchauH., KärrholmJ., WangY.X., HerbertsP.. Accuracy of migration analysis in hip arthroplasty. Digitized and conventional radiography, compared to radiostereometry in 51 patients.Acta Orthop Scand1995; 66: 418–24.
27.
GieG.A., LinderL., LingR.S., SimonJ.P., SlooffT.J., TimperleyA.J.. Contained morselized allograft in revision total hip arthroplasty. Surgical technique.Orthop Clin North Am1993; 24: 717–25.
28.
FranzenH., Toksvig-LarsenS., LidgrenL., OnnerfaltR.. Early Migration of Femoral Components Revised with Impacted Cancellous Allografts and Cement: A Preliminary Report of Five Patients.J Bone Joint Surg Br1995; 77: 862–4.
29.
MigaudH., JardinC., FontaineC., PierchonF., d'HerbomezO., DuquennoyA.. Femoral reconstruction with endosteal bone allografts protected by a metallic mesh in reoperation of total hip prosthesis. 19 cases with an average follow-up of 83 months (58–111 months).Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot1997; 83: 360–7.
30.
HallidayB.R., EnglishH.W., TimperleyA.J., GieG.A., LingR.S.. Femoral impaction grafting with cement in revision total hip replacement. Evolution of the technique and results.J Bone Joint Surg Br2003; 85: 809–17.
31.
HeadW.C., BerklacichF.M., MalininT.I., EmersonR.H.Jr.. Proximal femoral allografts in revision total hip arthroplasty.Clin Orthop Relat Res1987; 225; 22–36.
32.
MalkaniA.L., VoorM.J., FeeK.A., BatesC.S.. Femoral component revision using impacted morsellised cancellous graft. A biomechanical study of implant stability.J Bone Joint Surg Br1996; 78: 973–8.
33.
MastersonE.L., MasriB.A., DuncanC.P., RosenbergA., CabanelaM., GrossM.. The cement mantle in femoral impaction allografting. A comparison of three systems from four centres.J Bone Joint Surg Br1997; 79: 908–13.
ClarkeH.D., BerryD.J., SimF.H.. Salvage of failed femoral megaprostheses with allograft prosthesis composites.Clin Orthop Relat Res1998; 356: 222–9.
36.
ZehrR.J., EnnekingW.F., ScarboroughM.T.. Allograft prosthesis composite versus megaprosthesis in proximal femoral reconstruction.Clin Orthop Relat Res1996; 322: 207–23.
37.
HuoM.H., FriedlaenderG.E., SalvatiE.A.. Bone graft and total hip arthroplasty. A review.J Arthroplasty1992; 7: 109–20.
38.
MaurerS.G., BaitnerA.C., Di CesareP.E.. Reconstruction of the failed femoral component and proximal femoral bone loss in revision hip surgery.J Am Acad Orthop Surg2000; 8: 354–63.
39.
Van Der DonkS., BumaP., VerdonschotN., SchreursN.W.. Effect of load on the early incorporation of impacted morsellized allografts.Biomaterials2002; 23: 297–303.
40.
EnghC.A., BobynJ.D.. The influence of stem size and extent of porous coating on femoral bone resorption after primary cementless hip arthroplasty.Clin Orthop Relat Res1988; 231: 7–28.
41.
De ThomassonE., WilliamsJ.B., MarmoratJ.L., GuigandO., MazelC.. Modified Exeter technique in revision hip surgery: does distal fixation of the stem affect allograft transformation?J Arthroplasty2005; 20: 473–80.
42.
UllmarkG., HallinG., NilssonO.. Impacted corticocancellous allografts and cement for revision of the femur component in total hip arthroplasty.J Arthroplasty2002; 17: 140–9.
43.
SchreursB.W., ArtsJ.J., VerdonschotN., BumaP., GardeiersJ.W.. Femoral component revision with use of impaction bone-grafting and a cemented polished stem.J Bone Joint Surg Am2005; 87: 2499–507.
44.
SierraR.J., CharityJ., TsiridisE., TimperleyJ.A., GieG.A.. The use of long cemented stems for femoral impaction grafting in revision total hip arthroplasty.J Bone Joint Surg Am2008; 90: 1330–6.
