Hip & pelvis

  • 제22권3호
  • /
  • Pages.189-196
  • /
  • 2010
  • /
  • 2287-3260(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2287-3279(eISSN)
대한고관절학회 (The Korean Hip Society)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

광범위 다공성 표면 처리된 대퇴스템을 이용한 인공 고관절 재치환술 - 최소 5년 이상의 추시 결과 -

Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Using a Fully Porous-Coated Long Stem - a Minimum 5 Years Follow up -

  • 조윤제 (경희대학교 의과대학 정형외과학교실) ;
  • 곽상준 (경희대학교 의과대학 정형외과학교실) ;
  • 전영수 (경희대학교 의과대학 정형외과학교실) ;
  • 유기형 (경희대학교 의과대학 정형외과학교실) ;
  • 고택수 (경희대학교 의과대학 정형외과학교실) ;
  • 유명철 (경희대학교 의과대학 정형외과학교실)
  • Cho, Yoon-Je (Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, College of Medicine, Kyung Hee University) ;
  • Kwak, Sang-Joon (Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, College of Medicine, Kyung Hee University) ;
  • Chun, Young-Soo (Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, College of Medicine, Kyung Hee University) ;
  • Rhyu, Kee-Hyung (Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, College of Medicine, Kyung Hee University) ;
  • Ko, Taeg-Su (Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, College of Medicine, Kyung Hee University) ;
  • Yoo, Myung-Chul (Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, College of Medicine, Kyung Hee University)
  • 발행 : 2010.09.30
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

목적: 광범위 다공성 표면 처리 스템을 이용한 재치환술의 중기 추시 결과를 분석하였다. 대상 및 방법: 광범위 다공성 표면 처리 스템을 이용한 재치환술 후 평균 5년 5개월 추적 관찰한 20예를 분석하였다. 재치환술 원인은 무균성 해리, 스템 주위 골절, 감염성 인공 관절이 있었다. 4종류의 광범위 다공성 표면 처리 스템을 사용하였고, 17예에서 골 이식을 함께 시행하였다. Harris 고관절 점수, 대퇴 동통 및 파행과 운동 범위를 평가하였으며, 수직 침강, 응력 차단, 골 용해 등 방사선 변화를 관찰하였다. 결과: Harris 고관절 점수는 56.5점에서 91.9점으로 향상되었고, 만족스런 관절 운동 범위를 보였다. 지주골 이식을 시행한 1예에서 대퇴 동통이 지속되었다. 의미 있는 스템 수직 침강 및 이완 소견은 없었고, 재재치환술의 예도 없었다. 결론: 광범위 다공성 처리된 대퇴 시템의 안정성은 증기 추시에서도 잘 유지되었다. 본 술식은 간부에서 견고한 골 고정을 얻어, 골 결손이 심한 때에도 스템 안정성을 얻을 수 있고 근위부 골재건을 도모할 수 있으면 다른 술식에 비하여 간편한 장점이 있다. 간부까지 골 결손이 심한 경우 적합하지 않으며, 대퇴골 균열, 응력 차단, 대퇴 통증이 발생할 수 있으므로 세심한 주의가 필요하다.

Purpose: We wanted to evaluate the mid-term results of revision total hip arthroplasty using a fully porous-coated long stem. Materials and Methods: A retrospective series of 20 hips in 19 patients who underwent stem revision with a fully porous-coated long stem were evaluated at a mean follow-up of 64.6 months. The causes of revision were aseptic loosening, periprosthetic fracture and infected arthroplasty. Four kinds of implants had previously been used and an additional bone graft procedure had been done in 17 cases. The Harris hip scores, thigh pain, limping and ROM were reported. Radiological changes of the radiolucent signs, subsidence, loosening and the stress shielding signs were evaluated. Results: The Harris hip score improved from an average of 56.5 to 91.9 and the ROMs were satisfactory. The only case with persistent thigh pain showed stable bony ingrowth. No signs of subsidence or loosening of the stem was found in all the cases. There were 2 cases of periprosthetic fracture. None of the patients experienced re-revision surgery. Conclusion: The mid-term results of revision hip arthroplasty using a fully porous coated long stem have demonstrated that it provides a reliable initial fixation with a propensity for stable longevity. It is relatively easy for the techniques, and there is the opportunity to restore the bone stock by bone-grafting procedures with diaphyseal fixation and bypassing a bone defect. Yet alternative techniques may be required for the femur with extensive diaphyseal bone loss. There are some concerns about the technique and the possibility of making a crack in the femur during the operation, which will cause thigh pain at the follow-up. So, only by employing great caution when performing this technique can successful results be guaranteed.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Della Valle CJ, Paprosky WG. The femur in revision total hip arthroplasty evaluation and classification. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;420:55-62. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-200403000-00009
  2. Mulroy WF, Harris WH. Revision total hip arthroplasty with use of so-called second-generation cementing techniques for aseptic loosening of the femoral component. A fifteen-year-average follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1996;78:325-30. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-199603000-00002
  3. Pellicci PM, Wilson PD Jr, Sledge CB, et al. Long-term results of revision total hip replacement. A follow-up report. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1985;67:513-6. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-198567040-00002
  4. Paprosky WG, Greidanus NV, Antoniou J. Minimum 10-year results of extensively porous-coated stems in revision hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999;369:230-42. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-199912000-00024
  5. Weeden SH, Paprosky WG. Minimal 11-year follow-up of extensively porous-coated stems in femoral revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2002;17 Suppl:134-7. https://doi.org/10.1054/arth.2002.32461
  6. Callaghan JJ, Salvati EA, Pellicci PM, Wilson PD Jr, Ranawat CS. Results of revision for mechanical failure after cemented total hip replacement, 1979 to 1982. A two to five-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1985;67:1074-85. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-198567070-00011
  7. Gie GA, Linder L, Ling RS, Simon JP, Slooff TJ, Timperley AJ. Contained morselized allograft in revision total hip arthroplasty. Surgical technique. Orthop Clin North Am. 1993;24:717-25.
  8. Sporer SM, Paprosky WG. Revision total hip arthroplasty: the limits of fully coated stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;417:203-9.
  9. Buttaro MA, Mayor MB, Van Citters D, Piccaluga F. Fatigue fracture of a proximally modular, distally tapered fluted implant with diaphyseal fixation. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22:780-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2006.07.007
  10. Kim YH. Cemented revision hip arthroplasty using strut and impacted cancellous allografts. J Arthroplasty. 2004;19:726-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2004.02.038
  11. Oakes DA, Cabanela ME. Impaction bone grafting for revision hip arthroplasty: biology and clinical applications. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2006;14:620-8. https://doi.org/10.5435/00124635-200610000-00004
  12. Schreurs BW, Arts JJ, Verdonschot N, Buma P, Slooff TJ, Gardeniers JW. Femoral component revision with use of impaction bone-grafting and a cemented polished stem. Surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg. 2006;88-A Suppl:259-74.
  13. Sierra RJ, Charity J, Tsiridis E, Timperley JA, Gie GA. The use of long cemented stems for femoral impaction grafting in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90:1330-6. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.G.00055
  14. Blackley HR, Davis AM, Hutchison CR, Gross AE. Proximal femoral allografts for reconstruction of bone stock in revision arthroplasty of the hip. A nine to fifteenyear follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83:346-54. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200103000-00005
  15. Gross AE, Hutchison CR. Proximal femoral allografts for reconstruction of bone stock in revision arthroplasty of the hip. Orthop Clin North Am. 1998;29:313-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0030-5898(05)70329-1
  16. Haentjens P, De Boeck H, Opdecam P. Proximal femoral replacement prosthesis for salvage of failed hip arthroplasty: complications in a 2-11 year follow-up study in 19 elderly patients. Acta Orthop Scand. 1996;67:37-42. https://doi.org/10.3109/17453679608995606
  17. Parvizi J, Sim FH. Proximal femoral replacements with megaprostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;420:169-75. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-200403000-00023
  18. Moreland JR, Bernstein ML. Femoral revision hip arthroplasty with uncemented, porous-coated stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1995;319:141-50.
  19. Gustilo RB, Bechtold JE, Giacchetto J, Kyle RF. Rationale, experience and results of long-stem femoral prosthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989;249:159-68.
  20. Ornstein E, Atroshi I, Franzen H, Johnsson R, Sandquist P, Sundberg M. Results of hip revision using the Exeter stem, impacted allograft bone, and cement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;389:126-33. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-200108000-00018
  21. Hellman EJ, Capello WN, Feinberg JR. Nonunion of extended trochanteric osteotomies in impaction grafting femoral revisions. J Arthroplasty. 1998;13:945-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-5403(98)90204-2
  22. Hostner J, Hultmark P, Karrholm J, Malchau H, Tveit M. Impaction technique and graft treatment in revisions of the femoral component: laboratory studies and clinical validation. J Arthroplasty. 2001;16:76-82.
  23. Engh CA, Massin P, Suthers KE. Roentgenographic assessment of the biologic fixation of porous-surfaced femoral components. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990;259:107-28.
  24. Krishnamurthy AB, MacDonald SJ, Paprosky WG. 5- to 13-year follow-up study on cementless femoral components in revision surgery. J Arthroplasty. 1997;12:839-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-5403(97)90152-2