Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Midterm Success of a Custom, Non-Fluted, Diaphyseal, Press-Fit Stem Used With a Tumor Megaprosthesis System.
Visgauss, Julia D; Perrin, David L; Wilson, David A; Griffin, Anthony M; Wunder, Jay S; Ferguson, Peter C.
Afiliação
  • Visgauss JD; Duke University Medical Center, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Durham, NC.
  • Perrin DL; Section of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
  • Wilson DA; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
  • Griffin AM; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Mount Sinai Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
  • Wunder JS; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Mount Sinai Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
  • Ferguson PC; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Mount Sinai Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
J Arthroplasty ; 35(5): 1333-1338, 2020 05.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32067897
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

High rates of aseptic loosening with cemented prostheses have led to increased utilization of uncemented stems in the setting of megaprosthetic reconstruction. Theoretic concerns of rotational instability resulted in early stem designs with de-rotational mechanisms such as flutes or side plates. However, these designs have their own associated complications, and mechanical data suggest they are unnecessary. The purpose of this study is to evaluate outcomes and survivorship of an unfluted diaphyseal press-fit stem in the setting of megaprosthetic reconstruction.

METHODS:

Forty-five patients (46 stems), with a minimum 3-year follow-up, underwent reconstruction using 1 of 2 fully porous coated, unfluted, press-fit stems between 2005 and 2013 revision stem with adapter to the megaprosthesis (revision stem), or custom megaprosthesis stem (custom stem). Complications were described using the Henderson classification system, and subanalyses evaluated stem-related failures and survival. Radiographic evaluation of stem fixation was determined via evidence of bone bridging, spot welding, resorption, subsidence, and pedestal formation. Four patients had early stem removal for local recurrence or infection and were thus excluded from the radiographic analyses.

RESULTS:

Twenty-eight femoral (15 revision stem, 13 custom stem) and 14 tibial (6 revision stem, 8 custom stem) stems were reviewed. Average follow-up was 81 months (range, 42-140 months). Revision for implant-related complications occurred in 7 of 41 (17%), all in revision stems (3 adapter failures, 4 polyethylene wear). At final follow-up, all stems were retained without evidence of aseptic loosening, although 7 of 41 (17%) exhibited mild stress shielding.

CONCLUSION:

A non-fluted, press-fit stem used with a tumor prosthesis provided a stable bone-prosthesis interface at midterm follow-up.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Artroplastia de Quadril / Prótese de Quadril / Neoplasias Tipo de estudo: Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2020 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Artroplastia de Quadril / Prótese de Quadril / Neoplasias Tipo de estudo: Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2020 Tipo de documento: Article