Cancellous Impaction Grafting in Femoral Revision THA
Abstract
Options in the management of the deficient femur during revision hip arthroplasty include cemented or cementless fixation. The results with cemented femoral revision have not been historically successful. While the use of extensively coated implants in revision total hip arthroplasty has been more uniformly excellent, issues, such as thigh pain, stress shielding, and lack of bone stock restoration, have been raised. Impaction grafting in revision hip arthroplasty is an attempt to reconstitute bone stock and avoid problems associated with excessively large or long uncemented stems. The original concept of impaction grafting was promoted by Slooff and applied to the femur by Gie and Ling. While originators’ results were promising, issues, such as fracture and poor graft delivery, were noted. Modifications to the original technique were recently described by Howie, which used longer stems when necessary, as well as an improved graft delivery system. We report our results with 30 consecutive hips using this method. At follow-up, 3 patients were known to have died, leaving 27 for evaluation. Two of the 27 were failures: 1 recurrence of infection and 1 loose stem. The remaining 25 were clinical successes with bone stock restoration in all and no periprosthetic fractures. We believe that impaction grafting remains a viable option for the management of the severely deficient femur in whom cementless fixation methods are questionable.
- 1.Gramkow J, Jensen TH, Varmarken JE, Retpen JB. Long-term results after cemented revision of the femoral component in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2001; 16(6):777–783.
10.1054/arth.2001.23923 Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 2.Dohmae Y, Bechtold JE, Sherman RE, Puno RM, Gustilo RB. Reduction in cement-bone interface shear strength between primary and revision arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988; (236):214–220. Medline, Google Scholar
- 3.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):230–242.
10.1097/00003086-199912000-00024 Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 4.Hennessy DW, Callaghan JJ, Liu SS. Second-generation extensively porous-coated THA stems at minimum 10-year followup [published online ahead of print April 14, 2009]. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009; 467(9):2290–2296.
10.1007/s11999-009-0831-9 Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 5.Slooff TJ, Huiskes R, van Horn J, Lemmens AJ. Bone grafting in total hip replacement for acetabular protrusion. Acta Orthop Scand. 1984; 55(6):593–596.
10.3109/17453678408992402 Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 6.Gie GA, Linder L, Ling RS, Simon JP, Slooff TJ, Timperley AJ. Impacted cancellous allografts and cement for revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1993; 75(1):14–21. Crossref Medline, Google Scholar
- 7.Meding JB, Ritter MA, Keating EM, Faris PM. Impaction bone-grafting before insertion of a femoral stem with cement in revision total hip arthroplasty. A minimum two-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997; 79(12):1834–1841. Crossref Medline, Google Scholar
- 8.Howie DW, Callary SA, McGee MA, Russell NC, Solomon LB. Reduced femoral component subsidence with improved impaction grafting at revision hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010; 468(12):3314–3321.
10.1007/s11999-010-1484-4 Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 9.Della Valle CJ, Paprosky WG. The femur in revision total hip arthroplasty evaluation and classification. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004; (420):55–62.
10.1097/00003086-200403000-00009 Crossref Medline, Google Scholar
