Cargando…

Two stage revision with a proximal femur replacement

BACKGROUND: Despite very good prosthesis retention times, the growing numbers of primary implantations of hip endoprostheses are leading to increasing numbers of revision operations. Periprosthetic infection, particularly in revision implants, often leads to a massive loss of bone stock, so that in...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Dieckmann, Ralf, Schmidt-Braekling, Tom, Gosheger, Georg, Theil, Christoph, Hardes, Jendrik, Moellenbeck, Burkhard
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6368731/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30736777
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-019-2442-2
_version_ 1783394047879020544
author Dieckmann, Ralf
Schmidt-Braekling, Tom
Gosheger, Georg
Theil, Christoph
Hardes, Jendrik
Moellenbeck, Burkhard
author_facet Dieckmann, Ralf
Schmidt-Braekling, Tom
Gosheger, Georg
Theil, Christoph
Hardes, Jendrik
Moellenbeck, Burkhard
author_sort Dieckmann, Ralf
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Despite very good prosthesis retention times, the growing numbers of primary implantations of hip endoprostheses are leading to increasing numbers of revision operations. Periprosthetic infection, particularly in revision implants, often leads to a massive loss of bone stock, so that in a two-stage exchange the only option left is implantation of a megaendoprosthesis. This retrospective study investigated the clinical and functional outcome for patients who received megaendoprostheses in the proximal femur in two-stage exchange procedures. METHODS: Forty-nine patients were treated between 1996 and 2014 (mean age 71 years, mean follow-up period 52 months). Microorganisms were isolated intraoperatively in 44 patients (89.9%). The reinfection rate was documented in patients who did not undergo any further revision surgery due to mechanical failure (primary) and in patients who had subsequent revisions after reimplantation and subsequent reinfection (secondary). RESULTS: The mean C-reactive protein level at the time of reimplantation was 1.25 mg/dL (range 0.5–3.4). The primary success rate with curative treatment for prosthetic joint infection was 92% (four of 49 patients). The secondary success rate with infection revision cases was 82% (three of 17 revision cases). The mean Harris hip score was 69 (range 36–94). The majority of patients needed different types of walking aid or even wheelchairs, and only 50% of the patients were able to walk outside. CONCLUSIONS: Reinfections occurred in only 8% of patients who underwent two-stage exchanges with a proximal femur replacement. When revision surgery for the proximal femur replacement was required for mechanical reasons, however, the associated reinfections increased the reinfection rate to 18%. Proximal femur replacement achieves a clear reduction in pain, maintenance of leg length, and restoration of limited mobility, and the procedure thus represents a clear alternative to the extensive Girdlestone procedure, which is even more immobilising, or mutilating amputation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6368731
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-63687312019-02-15 Two stage revision with a proximal femur replacement Dieckmann, Ralf Schmidt-Braekling, Tom Gosheger, Georg Theil, Christoph Hardes, Jendrik Moellenbeck, Burkhard BMC Musculoskelet Disord Research Article BACKGROUND: Despite very good prosthesis retention times, the growing numbers of primary implantations of hip endoprostheses are leading to increasing numbers of revision operations. Periprosthetic infection, particularly in revision implants, often leads to a massive loss of bone stock, so that in a two-stage exchange the only option left is implantation of a megaendoprosthesis. This retrospective study investigated the clinical and functional outcome for patients who received megaendoprostheses in the proximal femur in two-stage exchange procedures. METHODS: Forty-nine patients were treated between 1996 and 2014 (mean age 71 years, mean follow-up period 52 months). Microorganisms were isolated intraoperatively in 44 patients (89.9%). The reinfection rate was documented in patients who did not undergo any further revision surgery due to mechanical failure (primary) and in patients who had subsequent revisions after reimplantation and subsequent reinfection (secondary). RESULTS: The mean C-reactive protein level at the time of reimplantation was 1.25 mg/dL (range 0.5–3.4). The primary success rate with curative treatment for prosthetic joint infection was 92% (four of 49 patients). The secondary success rate with infection revision cases was 82% (three of 17 revision cases). The mean Harris hip score was 69 (range 36–94). The majority of patients needed different types of walking aid or even wheelchairs, and only 50% of the patients were able to walk outside. CONCLUSIONS: Reinfections occurred in only 8% of patients who underwent two-stage exchanges with a proximal femur replacement. When revision surgery for the proximal femur replacement was required for mechanical reasons, however, the associated reinfections increased the reinfection rate to 18%. Proximal femur replacement achieves a clear reduction in pain, maintenance of leg length, and restoration of limited mobility, and the procedure thus represents a clear alternative to the extensive Girdlestone procedure, which is even more immobilising, or mutilating amputation. BioMed Central 2019-02-08 /pmc/articles/PMC6368731/ /pubmed/30736777 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-019-2442-2 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Dieckmann, Ralf
Schmidt-Braekling, Tom
Gosheger, Georg
Theil, Christoph
Hardes, Jendrik
Moellenbeck, Burkhard
Two stage revision with a proximal femur replacement
title Two stage revision with a proximal femur replacement
title_full Two stage revision with a proximal femur replacement
title_fullStr Two stage revision with a proximal femur replacement
title_full_unstemmed Two stage revision with a proximal femur replacement
title_short Two stage revision with a proximal femur replacement
title_sort two stage revision with a proximal femur replacement
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6368731/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30736777
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-019-2442-2
work_keys_str_mv AT dieckmannralf twostagerevisionwithaproximalfemurreplacement
AT schmidtbraeklingtom twostagerevisionwithaproximalfemurreplacement
AT goshegergeorg twostagerevisionwithaproximalfemurreplacement
AT theilchristoph twostagerevisionwithaproximalfemurreplacement
AT hardesjendrik twostagerevisionwithaproximalfemurreplacement
AT moellenbeckburkhard twostagerevisionwithaproximalfemurreplacement