fter total hip replacement ,massive bone defect occured freqently due to wearing and loosening of the prcathesis.The use of deep-freezing allograft to su pport a new implant was an attractive solution. Deep-freezing decreased the immune antigenicity of the transplanted allograft.From 1972 to 1990. the deep-freezing allografts were used in rcvision total hip replacement in 212 cases,in which 187 cases(198 hips) were followed-up for over 1 year.The general effective rate was 85%....
Objective To evaluate the clinical valueof the revision of total hip replacement(THR), to analyse the reason of the rev isions, and to discuss the main difficulties and measures to manage it.Methods From June 1998 to January 2002, 15 cases (15 hips) were revised on totalhip replacement. The reasons for revision in the cases were as follows:failure of primary operative techenique, loosening and sinking of the components, displacement of the prosthesis, erosion of the acetabulum, as well as fracture of the femoral stem. The main difficulties of the revision were:poor health condition of the patients; the remove of the prosthesis of the primary THR,especially the broken femoral stem and the cements; the loss of localbone. The measures to remove the broken femoral stem were described.ResultsAll cases were followed up 2.4 years on average: 2 patients died from heart disease and cerebrovascular disease respectively, while the good results were achieved in the others.No infection, dislocation, loosening, and other complications occurred. The good effects were related with following factors:mild degree of illness; no severe bone defect; most of the first femoral head replacement.Conclusion The revision of THRis a more difficult operation, so that the special instrument and equipment andoperative experience are required.
Objective To evaluate the medium-term results of uncemented acetabular revision with impacted deep frozen morsell ized allografts. Methods From April 1995 to December 2001, 58 cases (62 hips) were performed acetabularrevision by use of deep frozen morsel ized allograft firmly impacted into local ized defects as well as the entire acetabular cavity, followed by insertion of a uncemented cup with supplementary screw fixation. There were 32 males (34 hips) and 26 females (28 hips), with age of (49.6 ± 15.4) years old. Among 62 hips, 32 hips involved in left side and 30 hips involved in right side. The cause of revision was aseptic loosening of the cup in 56 hips, septic loosening of the cup in 3 hips, and polyethylene l iner dislodging with severe acetabular osteolysis in 3 hips. The average interval between the primary total hip arthroplasty and the revision was (10.1 ± 3.9) years. According to the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons classification, 42 hips belonged to type II and 20 hi ps to type III acetabular defects. The cl inical and radiographic results were analyzed postoperatively. Results All wounds healed by first intention. No deep venous thrombosis and infection occurred postoperatively. All patients were followed up 6-13 years (average 8.1 years). The Harris score was improved from 61.1 ± 10.2 preoperatively to 92.0 ± 7.3 postoperatively, showing significant difference between preoperation and postoperation (P lt; 0.05). The results were excellent in 46 hips, good in 10 hips, fair in 4 hips, and poor in 2 hips, the excellent and good rate was 90.3%. The time for allograft incorporation was (12.5 ± 4.4) months after operation. The annual polyethylene l iner wear rate was (0.13 ± 0.09) mm. Linear and cavitary osteolysis was observed in 2 and 12 hips, respectively. Heterotopic ossification developed in 7 hi ps (11.3%); 3 hi ps were rated as grade I, 3 as grade II, and 1 as grade III according to Brooker classification. One cup underwent revision for asepticloosening and 2 were defined as radiographic failures. Kaplan-Meier survival rate of the cup was 94.2% ± 3.3% at 8 years after operation. Conclusion The combination of uncemented cup component with deep frozen morsel ized allografts seems to be a rel iable solution for restoring bone stock, relocating the hip center, and stabil izing the cup in acetabular revision, and provides favorable medium-term cl inical and radiographic results.
From 1974 to 1991, two hundred and sixty-four cases of hip replacement were performed. These cases composed of 150 cases of artificial femoral head prosthesis replacement and 114 cases of total hip replacement. Fifteen cases were revised after the first replacement in 7.4 years average (5-16 years). The revision rate was 5.7%. The causes of revision were loose or subside of prosthesis, wear and tear of acetabulum, dislocation of artificial hip joint, etc, which caused pain and dysfunction. The revision cases were followed up for 4.7 years average with good result. To prevent revision, The medully canal shonld not be too wide and in osteoporosis cases, bone cement was suggested to apply. The chondrium of acetabulum should be removed completely.
Objective To evaluate the strength of polyethylene l inercement interface when cementing a new linerinto a fixed acetabular cup in revision. Methods Twenty-five pairs of metal acetabular cups with polyethylene l iners were randomly divided into 5 groups: 1 group with standard locking device as control group (group A), other l iners were cemented into acetabular cups as 4 experimental groups. According to different intersection angles of metal acetabular cups with polyethylene liners and the polyethylene l iners with or without metal ball, the 4 experimental groups were no ball 0° group (group B), 0° group (group C), 10° group (group D), and 20° group (group E), metal acetabular cups intersected with polyethylene liners without metal ball in group B, with metal ball in groups C, D, and E, respectively. The lever-out biomechanical test reproduced in vivo failure mechanism was then performed to evaluate the lever-out failure strength of l iner-cement-metalcup interface. Results The values of l iver-out failure force were (626.68 ± 206.12), (915.04 ± 197.49), (449.02 ± 119.78),(814.68 ± 53.89), and (1 033.05 ± 226.44) N in groups A, B, C, D, and E, respectively, showing significant differences forcomparison among groups (F=8.989，P=0.000). The values of l iver-out failure force in groups B and E were significantlyhigher than that in group A (P lt; 0.05), but no significant difference was found between groups C, D and group A (P gt; 0.05).Conclusion Cementation of polyethylene l iner into a malposition shell meeting within 20° can provide enough fixed strength.
Objective To investigate the analgesic effect of locally injecting a “cocktail” analgesia containing a high-dose compound betamethasone during revision hip arthroplasty, and also to study the usage of opioid drugs. MethodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on the clinical data of 180 patients who underwent revision hip arthroplasty due to aseptic loosening of the hip prosthesis between January 2015 and December 2021. Among them, 95 patients received intraoperative injection of “cocktail” analgesia containing high-dose compound betamethasone (group A), and 85 patients received intraoperative injection of traditional “cocktail” analgesia (group B). There was no significant difference in baseline data such as gender, age, body mass index, presence or absence of diabetes mellitus between the two groups (P>0.05). The hospital stay, use of opioid drugs within 72 hours, and the incidence of adverse reactions within 72 hours after operation [including nausea and vomiting, insomnia, deep venous thrombosis (DVT), infection, etc.] were recorded and compared between the two groups. The pain relief of patients was evaluated using the static and dynamic visual analogue scale (VAS) scores at 12, 24, 48, and 72 hours after operation. The incidence of complications (including prosthesis re-loosening, hip joint dislocation, hip joint stiffness, limping, chronic pain, etc.) at 2 years after operation was recorded, and the Harris Hip Score (HHS) was used to evaluate the function at 2 years after operation. Results In group A, the utilization rate of opioid drugs within 72 hours after operation was significantly lower than that in group B (P<0.05). However, there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of hospital stay, as well as the incidence of adverse reactions such as nausea and vomiting, insomnia, DVT, and infection within 72 hours after operation (P>0.05). The VAS scores of both groups decreased with time, and the differences between different time points were significant (P<0.05). The static and dynamic VAS scores of group A were significantly lower than those of group B at 12, 24, and 48 hours after operation (P<0.05), but there was no significant difference in static and dynamic VAS scores between the two groups at 72 hours after operation (P>0.05). All patients in both groups were followed up 2-8 years, with an average of 5.73 years. At 2 years after operation, no significant difference was found between the two groups in the incidence of complications and HHS score (P>0.05). Conclusion“Cocktail” analgesia containing a high-dose compound betamethasone for early analgesia after revision hip arthroplasty can effectively reduce postoperative pain and the use of opioid drugs, but will not increase the incidence of infection and DVT after operation.
Objective To analyze the main reasons of acetabular component initial instabil ity after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) and to disscuss the prevention and management. Methods The cl inical data were retrospectively analyzed from 19 patients undergoing revision for acetabular component initial instabil ity after primary THA between January 2003 and June 2010. There were 11 males and 8 females, aged from 55 to 79 years (mean, 67.2 years). The locations were lefthip in 9 cases and right hip in 10 cases. The cementless hip prosthesis was used in 12 cases and cement hip rosthesis in 7 cases. The revisions were performed at 3 weeks to 6 months after primary THA. The reasons of early failure were analyzed. Both the coverage rate of acetabulum-bone and the Harris hip score were compared between pre- and post-revision. Results The main reason of acetabular component initial instabil ity after primary THA may be unsuitable treatment of acetabulum, improper selection of acetabular component, and incorrect place angle of acetabular component. Sciatic nerve palsy occurred in 1 case and recovered at 7 weeks after revision. Sl ight fracture of the acetabulum in 1 case and healed at 3 months after revision. All incisions healed by first intention. No infection, vessel injury, displacement of acetabular component, or deep vein thrombosis occurred. The patients were followed up 11-73 months (mean, 28 months). At last follow-up, no acetabular component instabil ity was observed. The coverage rate of acetabulum-bone was increased from 67.9% ± 5.5% before revision to 87.7% ± 5.2% after revision, showing significant difference (t=11.592，P=0.003). The Harris hip score at last follow-up (84.4 ± 4.6) was significantly higher than that at pre-revision (56.5 ± 9.3) (t=11.380，P=0.005). Conclusion Detailed surgical plan, proper choice of component, correct place angle and elaborative planning, and proficient surgical skill are necessary to achieve the initial stability of acetabular component in THA．
Objective To evaluate the surgical skill, cause of revision, compl ications, prosthetic survival and postoperative function in revision of custom-made tumor prosthesis replacement of knee joint. Methods The cl inical data of 33 patients who received prosthetic revision surgery between June 2002 and June 2007 were reviewed. There were 17 malesand 16 females with an average age of 33.1 years (range, 16-67 years). The pathological diagnosis included 17 osteosarcomas, 11 giant cell tumors, 2 mal ignant fibrous histocytomas, 1 chondrosarcoma, 1 synovial sarcoma, and 1 l iposarcoma. The involved locations were distal femur in 22 cases and proximal tibia in 11 cases. The average interval between first prosthetic replacement and revision surgery was 45.3 months (range, 6-180 months). The reason for revision included local recurrence in 2 cases, deep infection in 8 cases, aseptic loosening in 7 cases, peri prosthetic fracture in 1 case, prosthetic stem fracture in 6 cases, and prosthetic hinge failure in 9 cases. Six patients with deep infection received two-stage revision surgery, while the other 27 patients received one-stage revision. Cemented prostheses were used in all patients. Allograft prosthetic composite and revisions were used in 2 patients who had deficit of diaphysis for stem fixation. Results In 17 patients who received both primary prosthetic replacement and revision, the operative time was (149.8 ± 40.5) minutes and (189.9 ± 43.8) minutes, and the blood loss was (605.2 ± 308.0) mL and (834.1 ± 429.9) mL for primary prosthetic replacement and revision, respectively; all showing statistically significant differences (P lt; 0.05). The mean time of follow-up was 45.1 months (range, 12-76 months). Heal ing between allograft and host bone was obtained in 2 patients with allograft prosthetic composite and revision after 1.5 years and 2 years, respectively. After revision surgery, 3 patients died of lung metastasis after 12-24 months, and other 3 patients havinglung metastasis were al ive with disease. Nine (30%) compl ications occurred in 30 patients who were al ive at last follow-up. The compl ications included wound infection in 2 patients, deep infection in 5 patients, mechanical problems in 2 patients. Prosthetic failure occurred in 7 patients (23.3%). The 5-year survival rate of revised prosthesis was 68.6%. The Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score at 6 months after revision (73.6% ± 14.4%) was significantly improved (P lt; 0.01) when compared with before revision (57.1% ± 10.6%). Conclusion The main reasons for revision of custom-made tumor prosthesis of knee joint were mechanical problems and deep infection. Although revision surgery of knee is relatively compl icated and has some compl ications, a functional l imb could be maintained in most tumor patients.
OBJECTIVE To analyze the indications for revision surgery after limb salvage procedure of malignant bone tumor and summarize the experiences in revision surgery. METHODS From January 1994 to December 1997, 8 cases were re-operated after primary limb salvage procedure. The average survival period with no-tumor occurrence was 8 years. The common causes for the revision were traumatic osteoarthritis, fracture, and bone resorption. The main difficulties in revision were soft tissue contracture and limb discrepancy from limb shortening. RESULTS In this study, there was total hip replacement in 1 case, large segmental allograft for reconstruction of distal femur in 3 cases, total knee replacement upon composite of previously transplanted allograft in 3 cases, removing of intramedullary nail and re-internally fixed with intramedullary nail in 1 cases. The isotopic bone scan before the revision showed active bone metabolism in all 4 transplanted segmental allograft. The pathologic study of the transplanted allograft after revision confirmed new bone formation in allograft. The revision procedure reduced the pain, and improved the limb function. CONCLUSION The main causes of revision surgery after limb salvage procedure of malignant bone tumor are fracture of transplanted allograft segment or devitalized tumor segment, and poor function of the affected joint. Constrained knee prostheses with rotating hinges or semi-constrained ball-axis resurfacing knee prostheses improve the function of knee joint postoperatively.
Objective To analyze the effectiveness of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS). Methods Between October 2003 and December 2007, 36 patients with FBSS were treated with TLIF. There were 19 males and 17 females with an average age of 52.6 years (range, 46-68 years) and an average disease duration of 1.6 years (range, 3 months-15 years). Of 36 patients, reoperation was performed in 25, 10 received 3 operations,and 1 had 5 operations. A total of 50 segments were involved in fusion, including L4, 5 in 12 cases, L5, S1 in 10 cases, L3, 4 and L4, 5 double segments in 8 cases, and L4, 5 and L5, S1 double segments in 6 cases. According to X-ray films, CT, and MRI examination, 12 patients were diagnosed as having lumbar instabil ity secondary to total laminectomy, 18 as having recurrence of lumbar disc protrusion, and 6 as having recurrence of lumbar spondylol isthesis. Results Dural rupture occurred in 1 case and was repaired by suturing without cerebrospinal fluid leakage was observed; 1 had deep incision infection of Staphylococcus; and 1 had transient single irritation sign because of hematoma formation and was cured after symptomatic treatment. The other incisions healed by first intention. No patients had permanent nerve injury or deterioration. Thirty-three cases were followed up 18-72 months (mean, 35.2 months). At 12 months, all the operated segments reached interbody fusion, and no breakage of screw or Cage dislocation occurred. Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores showed significant difference (t=2.45, P=0.01) between before operation (14.2 ± 4.1) and 18 months after operation (23.9 ± 2.6). The rate of cl inical improvement was 90.9% (23 cases of excellent, 7 cases of good, 3 cases of acceptable). Conclusion The TLIF simpl ifies the manipulation of lumbar revision surgery and decreases the operation risk and the operative compl ications for the treatment of FBSS.