scholarly journals Cement-in-cement revision with the Exeter Short Revision Stem: A review of 50 consecutive hips

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-55
Author(s):  
Andrew J. Berg ◽  
Antonia Hoyle ◽  
Edward Yates ◽  
Aslam Chougle ◽  
Rama Mohan
Keyword(s):  
Revision Stem

Midterm Results of Wagner Revision Stem

2003 ◽  
Vol 141 (S 1) ◽  
Author(s):  
M Papoutsakis ◽  
P Megas ◽  
P Zouboulis ◽  
E Lambiris
Keyword(s):  
Midterm Results ◽  
Revision Stem

Fixation of a modular curved revision stem with a taper of 2° in the femur

2018 ◽  
Vol 139 (1) ◽  
pp. 127-133
Author(s):  
Bernd Fink ◽  
Uli Buntenbroich ◽  
Damian Oremek
Keyword(s):  
Revision Stem

scholarly journals Experience in use of Wagner SL Revision Stem for Revision Hip Arthroplasty

2014 ◽  
pp. 40-45
Author(s):  
G. M. Kavalerskiy ◽  
V. Yu. Murylyov ◽  
Ya. A. Rukin ◽  
M. Yu. Kholodaev ◽  
P. M. Elizarov
Keyword(s):  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Femoral Stem ◽  
Revision Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Femoral Bone ◽  
Defect Type ◽  
Hip Implant ◽  
Femoral Defect ◽  
Revision Stem

Experience in revision hip arthroplasty with change of femoral stem was analyzed for 165 patients. In 107 operations (64.8%) Wagner SL Revision Stems were used, in the rest of cases - femoral components of other manufacturers. Distribution of patients by femoral defect type by Paprovsky was the following: I type - 27 patients, II type - 75, IIIA type - 59, IIIB and IV type - 4 patients. Good results at use of Wagner SL Revision Stems and stems of other manufacturers were comparable and made up 87.9 and 86.2%, respectively. Achieved data enabled to make conclusion that Wagner SL Revision Stem use is reasonable for patients with hip implant instability in I-IIIA femoral bone deficit, as they are cheaper than the modular revision stems and their design prevents the wear in the area of modular junction.

The Wagner SL-Revision Stem for Aseptic Loosening: Clinical and Radiological Results 5 to 7 Years after Femoral Revision

2003 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 94-100
Author(s):  
M.J.F. Diks ◽  
M. Spruit ◽  
J.J. Reimering ◽  
F. Den Boer ◽  
P.G. Anderson
Keyword(s):  
Total Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Bone Loss ◽  
Aseptic Loosening ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Primary Stability ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
Radiological Evaluation ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
Revision Stem

Aseptic loosening in total hip arthroplasty can lead to proximal femoral periprosthetic bone loss. The non-cemented Wagner revision stem achieves primary fixation in the diaphysis. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the results after medium- to long-term follow-up of the Wagner prosthesis for revision of the femoral component for aseptic loosening in total hip arthroplasty with proximal femoral bone loss. We performed 53 femoral revisions for aseptic loosening with the non-cemented Wagner revision stem. Clinical assessment included a modified Harris Hip Score and a radiological evaluation. The mean follow-up was 65 months. The Harris Hip Score improved significantly (42.9 to 72.3). Radiological evaluation revealed 24.5% subsidence (>5 mm) in our population. Nine re-revisions were done, eight in the first post-operative year. The re-revisions were performed for progressive subsidence (five), recurrent dislocations (one), subsidence with low-grade infection (one), false route (one), and aseptic loosening after 75 months (one). The cumulative survival rate of the Wagner stem after 12 months was 85% and 76% after 75 months. A relatively high re-revision rate was observed during the first post-operative year. Analysis of these failures has shown that subsidence may be the result of insufficient primary stability. Adequate pre-operative planning and intra-operative radiological assistance is necessary for perfect primary stability and fixation of the Wagner stem. The re-revision incidence after the first 12 months is 0.45 per 100 implants per year. The prosthesis has good survival potential after proper introduction.

Five- to 10-Year Results Using a Noncemented Modular Revision Stem Without Bone Grafting

2008 ◽  
Vol 23 (7) ◽  
pp. 964-970 ◽  
Author(s):  
Georg Köster ◽  
Tim A. Walde ◽  
Hans-Georg Willert
Keyword(s):  
Bone Grafting ◽  
Revision Stem ◽  
Modular Revision Stem

The Wagner revision stem in alloarthroplasty of the hip

1996 ◽  
Vol 115 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. -H. Hartwig ◽  
P. B�hm ◽  
U. Czech ◽  
P. Reize ◽  
W. K�sswetter
Keyword(s):  
Revision Stem

scholarly journals The accuracy of Intramedullary Femoral alignment in Total Knee Replacement in the prescence of ipsilateral Hip Replacement

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (5_suppl5) ◽  
pp. 2325967117S0016
Author(s):  
A/Prof Michael Reid ◽  
Dr Benjamin Parkinson ◽  
Dr Adam Parr ◽  
Dr Christopher Conyard ◽  
Dr Drew Armit ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Total Knee Replacement ◽  
Knee Replacement ◽  
Hip Replacement ◽  
Mechanical Axis ◽  
Computer Navigation ◽  
Accurate Method ◽  
Revision Stem ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Total Knee

Objectives: During total knee replacement (TKR) surgery, the most commonly used method for aligning the distal femur appropriately is via an intramedullary (IM) distal femoral alignment rod. The alignment of the rod itself is reliant on the isthmus which is used to most accurately place the rod in the correct anatomical axis. In the instance of something preventing the rod from entering the isthmus correctly, such as a hip replacement, then the degree of accuracy could be assumed to be even less. Mechanical-anatomical malalignment has been shown to decrease the implant (TKR) survival and so methods of increasing accuracy of alignment relative to the mechanical axis have been developed. At present the most accurate method intraoperatively is computer navigation and several studies have demonstrated improved alignment. An increasing number of patients year on year are having both knee and hip replacements and as the population ages the likelihood of having both a knee and hip replacement will also increase. We propose that the presence of a hip replacement within the isthmus of the femur may further decrease the accuracy of the IM alignment of the femur leading to incorrect implant positioning. Methods: The study was conducted on 10 cadaveric specimens (20 femurs). Computational navigation instrumentation was attached in turn to each femur and the ideal alignment data recorded in a standard fashion by a single operator (principal investigator). A standard entry port was then be made in the femur for the introduction of the IM rod. An IM rod was then inserted with the distal femoral cutting block in the accepted position recorded blindly on the computer navigation (both in terms of varus/valgus alignment to the mechanical axis and the degree of flexion). The process was then repeated at 3 levels to represent primary and revision hip lengths from the greater trochanter (replicating the changes that would occur in the presence of a hip replacement) The process was recorded three times at each level. Results: The resection angles between the cutting surface and the mechanical axis were measured and collected by means of computer navigation system. The results show that the IM alignment had mean Valgus of 0 degrees +/- 0.8 but with a hip replacement in situ this increased to 0.46 degrees +/- 1.49 (range 2.5 varus to 4.5 valgus), with a revision stem 0.825 +/- 1.68 (range 2.5 varus to 4.5 valgus) and long stemmed revision 1.325 +/- 2.09 (range 5 varus to 6.5 valgus). In terms of Flexion IM alignment had a mean flexion of 0.92 +/- 1.7 (range 3 extension to 4 flexion) but with a hip replacement in situ this increased to 1.88 degrees +/- 2.03 (range 2.5 extension to 8.5 flexion), with a revision stem 2.35 +/- 2.2 (range 2.5 extension to 8 flexion) and long stemmed revision 2.75 +/- 2.16 (range 3.5 extension to 7 flexion). Conclusion: This Study concludes that the prescence of a hip replacement, in particular long stemmed prosthesis, further reduces the accuracy of IM alignment in the Femur for Total Knee Replacement. Consideration of an alternative method, such as navigation, should be considered in such situations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document