Following the increasing number of total hip arthroplasties, the amount of hip revision procedures continue to rise. Careful patient selection and bone loss evaluation is crucial for a correct management of femoral revision procedures. The key point in femoral revision is to obtain a reliable primary stability of the stem, with the least invasive implant as possible, to preserve and if possible to restore the bone stock. In this article we present the indications and the techniques for the femoral revisions most commonly used in Europe, referring to the evidence in the literature and our personal experiences.
LearmonthIDYoungCRorabeckCThe operation of the century: total hip replacement.Lancet. 2007;370(9597):1508–1519.
2.
KurtzSMowatFOngKChanNLauEHalpernMPrevalence of primary and revision total hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 1990 through 2002.J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(7):1487–1497.
3.
SadoghiPLiebensteinerMAgreiterMLeithnerABöhlerNLabekGRevision surgery after total joint arthroplasty: a complication-based analysis using worldwide arthroplasty registers.J Arthroplasty. 2013;28(8):1329–1332.
4.
HartmanCWGarvinKLFemoral fixation in revision total hip arthroplasty.Instr Course Lect. 2012;61:313–325.
5.
PuriLWixsonRLSternSHKohliJHendrixRWStulbergSDUse of helical computed tomography for the assessment of acetabular osteolysis after total hip arthroplasty.J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84(4):609–614.
6.
D'AntonioJMcCarthyJCBargarWLClassification of femoral abnormalities in total hip arthroplasty.Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1993(296):133–139.
7.
PipinoFMolfettaLGIR classification of acetabular and femoral bone loss in revision hip arthroplasty surgery.J Orthop Traumatol. 2000;2:69–77.
8.
ValleCJPaproskyWGClassification and an algorithmic approach to the reconstruction of femoral deficiency in revision total hip arthroplasty.J Bone Joint Surg Am. 200385(Suppl 4):1–6.
9.
GozzardCBlomATaylorASmithELearmonthIA comparison of the reliability and validity of bone stock loss classification systems used for revision hip surgery.J Arthroplasty. 2003;18(5):638–642.
10.
ShethNPNelsonCLPaproskyWGFemoral bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty: evaluation and management.J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2013;21(10):601–612.
11.
OetgenMEHuoMHKeggiKJRevision total hip arthroplasty using the Zweymller femoral stem.J Orthop Traumatol. 2008;9(2):57–62.
12.
KorovessisPRepantisTHigh medium-term survival of Zweymüller SLR-plus stem used in femoral revision.Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467(8):2032–2040.
13.
KeelingPPrendergastPJLennonABKennyPJCement-in-cement revision hip arthroplasty: an analysis of clinical and biomechanical literature.Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2008;128(10):1193–1199.
14.
RaviBCroxfordRReichmannWMLosinaEKatzJNHawkerGAThe changing demographics of total joint arthroplasty recipients in the United States and Ontario from 2001 to 2007.Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2012;26(5):637–647.
15.
KurtzSMOngKLSchmierJZhaoKMowatFLauEPrimary and revision arthroplasty surgery caseloads in the United States from 1990 to 2004.J Arthroplasty. 2009;24(2):195–203.
16.
LiebermanJRMoeckelBHEvansBGSalvatiEARanawatCSCement-within-cement revision hip arthroplasty.J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1993;75(6):869–871.
17.
WangLDaiZWenTLiMHuYThree to seven year follow-up of a tapered modular femoral prosthesis in revision total hip arthroplasty.Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2013;133(2):275–281.
18.
RegisDSandriABonettiILong-term results of femoral revision with the Wagner Self-Locking stem.Surg Technol Int. 2013;23:243–250.
19.
SkyttäETEskelinenARemesVSuccessful femoral reconstruction with a fluted and tapered modular distal fixation stem in revision total hip arthroplasty.Scand J Surg. 2012;101(3):222–226.
20.
MunroJTGarbuzDSMasriBADuncanCPRole and results of tapered fluted modular titanium stems in revision total hip arthroplasty.J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012;94(11) (Suppl A):58–60.
21.
BöhmPBischelOThe use of tapered stems for femoral revision surgery.Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004(420):148–159.
22.
GrossAEHutchisonCRProximal femoral allografts for reconstruction of bone stock in revision arthroplasty of the hip.Orthop Clin North Am. 1998;29(2):313–317.
23.
GieGALinderLLingRSSimonJPSlooffTJTimperleyAJImpacted cancellous allografts and cement for revision total hip arthroplasty.J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1993;75(1):14–21.
24.
HallidayBREnglishHWTimperleyAJGieGALingRSFemoral impaction grafting with cement in revision total hip replacement.Evolution of the technique and results.J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2003;85(6):809–817.
25.
OrnsteinELinderLRanstamJLewoldSEislerTTorperMFemoral impaction bone grafting with the Exeter stem - the Swedish experience: survivorship analysis of 1305 revisions performed between 1989 and 2002.J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009;91(4):441–446.
26.
ButtaroMACostantiniJCombaFPiccalugaFThe use of femoral struts and impacted cancellous bone allograft in patients with severe femoral bone loss who undergo revision total hip replacement: a three- to nine-year follow-up.J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012;94(2):167–172.
27.
HowieDWCallarySAMcGeeMARussellNCSolomonLBReduced femoral component subsidence with improved impaction grafting at revision hip arthroplasty.Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(12):3314–3321.
28.
PekkarinenJAlhoALepistöJYlikoskiMYlinenPPaavilainenTImpaction bone grafting in revision hip surgery.A high incidence of complications.J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2000;82(1):103–107.
29.
WilsonDFreiHMasriBAOxlandTRDuncanCPA biomechanical study comparing cortical onlay allograft struts and plates in the treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures.Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2005;20(1):70–76.
30.
DennisDAClaytonMLWongDAMackRPSusmanMHInternal fixation compression arthrodesis of the ankle.Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990(253):212–220.
31.
ChungLHWuPKChenCFChenWMChenTHLiuCLExtensively porous-coated stems for femoral revision: reliable choice for stem revision in Paprosky femoral type III defects.Orthopedics. 2012;35(7):e1017–e1021.
32.
HamiltonWGCashenDVHoHHopperRHJrEnghCAExtensively porous-coated stems for femoral revision: a choice for all seasons.J Arthroplasty. 2007;22(4) (Suppl 1):106–110.
33.
ParviziJTarityTDSlenkerNProximal femoral replacement in patients with non-neoplastic conditions.J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(5):1036–1043.
34.
MalkaniALSettecerriJJSimFHChaoEYWallrichsSLLong-term results of proximal femoral replacement for non-neoplastic disorders.J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1995;77(3):351–356.
35.
RogersBASternheimABacksteinDSafirOGrossAEProximal femoral allograft for major segmental femoral bone loss: a systematic literature review.Adv Orthop. 2011;2011:257572.
36.
RogersBASternheimADe IorioMBacksteinDSafirOGrossAEProximal femoral allograft in revision hip surgery with severe femoral bone loss: a systematic review and meta-analysis.J Arthroplasty. 2012;27(6):829–836.e1.
37.
MayleREJrPaproskyWGMassive bone loss: allograft-prosthetic composites and beyond.J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012;94(11) (Suppl A):61–64.
38.
FrieseckeCPlutatJBlockARevision arthroplasty with use of a total femur prosthesis.J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(12):2693–2701.
