The transfemoral approach for controlled removal of well-fixed femoral stems in hip revision surgery

[Tips and tricks of cement removal in the case of revision surgery]

BACKGROUND

In Germany, current revision rates after arthroplasty range between 28-37%. In particular, remaining cement residues are causative for additional revision surgery after periprosthetic joint infection, which is why complete cement removal is of high importance. However, the removal of remaining cement residues often confronts the surgeon with technical challenges. Complication-free and complete cement removal requires extensive preoperative preparation in order to develop the best possible surgical strategy.

TREATMENT

Special instrument sets to facilitate cement removal in revision cases are available from various manufacturers. In addition to endoluminal approaches, access enhancements such as extended osteotomies exist to facilitate complete cement removal. Finally, the surgeon should be able to give the indication for an intraoperative procedural change after a defined time interval.

The "Inside-Out" Anterior Osteotomy of the Proximal Femur via the Direct Anterior Approach in Revision Hip Arthroplasty

Osteotomy techniques used for wide exposure during femoral component revision include the extended trochanteric osteotomy and its modifications. We describe an anterior proximal femur osteotomy technique starting from the inside of the femoral canal at the bone-implant interface and heading outward. The technique is used in conjunction with the extended direct anterior approach and allows direct access to and visualization of the anterior, medial, and lateral bone-implant interfaces. This technique is most useful for the removal of collared, fully hydroxyapatite-coated double-tapered femoral stems, in which bone-implant interfaces need to be accessed for removal of a well-osseointegrated hip arthroplasty implant.

Clinical evaluation of a new technique for custom-made spacers in septic two-stage revision of total hip arthroplasties

INTRODUCTION

In septic two-stage revision surgery, success depends on numerous factors. Key steps are the procedure of ex- and reimplantation and the choice of spacer in the interim phase. The latter is still a matter of debate. Recently, we showed the microbial non-inferiority of a spacer technique using prosthetic cemented implants with an individualized antibiotic mixture in the cement applying a mechanically inferior cementation method. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the clinical results of these spacers in view of either an endofemoral or a transfemoral procedure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Our collective consisted of 86 patients (45 endofemoral and 41 transfemoral procedures). The collective was analyzed with respect to complications, reinfection rate and clinical status at the end of the interim phase. Results of an endofemoral and transfemoral approach were compared.

RESULTS

With a median Staffelstein-Score of 60 (range 31-81) at the end of the interim phase, the first clinical results are promising. The reinfection-free rate after a median follow-up of 50 months was 90%. Spacer-related complications occurred in 8% of the total collective. Comparing the endo- and transfemoral procedure, there were no statistical differences in complications or regarding the clinical and infectiological outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, we were able to show good clinical results for the presented spacer technique. With no relevant difference in outcome, the decision for an endofemoral or transfemoral technique can be based on technical deliberations. Further prospective comparative studies are necessary to show the clinical benefit of this procedure.

[The challenge of revising a well-fixed curved calcar-guided short stem in total hip arthroplasty: Introduction of a new curved extraction chisel system]

OBJECTIVE

Safe and bone-conserving extraction of a well-fixed curved short stem without the necessity of a transfemoral approach.

INDICATIONS

The revision of a well-fixed curved short stem, for example, due to periprosthetic infection or malposition. Meticulous preparation of the cone and the lateral shoulder of the stem.

CONTRAINDICATIONS

Correct placement of the chuck not possible.

SURGICAL TECHNIQUE

Choice of a standard approach to the hip joint. Luxation. Removal of the implanted head. Preparation of the proximal femur and removal of bone at the stem shoulder. Attachment of the chuck to the cone. Insertion of the "prestarter" chisels through the guided slots of the chuck, starting with the lateral chisel, followed by the ventral and dorsal chisel. The cut must point outwards away from the implant. Repetition of this procedure using the "starter" chisels in the same order. Removal of the chuck. Careful insertion of the "final" chisels in the same order. Trial of a stem extraction using an extraction tool. Optional repetition of the whole procedure. In order to avoid fractures, opening of the medial interface only after preparation laterally, ventrally and dorsally, by careful insertion of the medial chisels in the respective order alongside the calcar. Finally, extraction of the stem.

POSTOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT

Postoperative protocol according to the respective revision implants and fixation technique used.

RESULTS

The described procedure has proven successful in clinical practice in the three author affiliations in a total of 14 cases. In 3 (21.4%) cases, despite the use of the extraction chisel system, an additional transfemoral approach or fenestration had to be performed to remove the short stem. Primary straight stems were used in over half of the cases (57.8%) as revision implants, whereas in 4 cases (36.4%) a cementless short stem could again be used.