Revision of Endoprosthesis-treated Hips Clinical Trials

N2 - Eighty-one patients who had hip reconstruction with bone grafting and bipolar endoprosthesis for severe acetabular deficiency were reviewed retrospectively at 3 to 8 years postoperatively. Failed total hip arthroplasty was the most common indication for operation. Bone grafts were fixed bone blocks, morselized cancellous bone, and wafer-type grafts used singly or in combination. The average Harris hip rating score was 49.9 points preoperatively, 81.4 points at 1 year, and 70.8 points at latest followup examination. The 35 unsuccessful procedures included 25 reoperations for implant removal (resection arthroplasty or revision) and 10 cases pending revision. At latest followup examination, 54.7% of patients considered themselves improved and 62.7% had no or mild pain. Eighty-five percent of cases had radiographic evidence of component migration that was superior and medial in direction. Overall probability of implant survival was 96% at 1 year, but only 47% at 6.5 years postoperatively. Because of the high failure rate, this procedure has a limited role in hip reconstruction, but may be a reasonable part of a staged reconstruction for patients with massive bone loss or in certain revision cases where instability is a concern.

DEVICE FOR REVISION ENDOPROSTHESIS MAKING OF …

Single-Stage Revision Using an Uncemented, Porous-Coated, Anatomic Endoprosthesis in Two Dogs

Knee Endoprosthesis – type CMS - revision implant | …

AB - Eighty-one patients who had hip reconstruction with bone grafting and bipolar endoprosthesis for severe acetabular deficiency were reviewed retrospectively at 3 to 8 years postoperatively. Failed total hip arthroplasty was the most common indication for operation. Bone grafts were fixed bone blocks, morselized cancellous bone, and wafer-type grafts used singly or in combination. The average Harris hip rating score was 49.9 points preoperatively, 81.4 points at 1 year, and 70.8 points at latest followup examination. The 35 unsuccessful procedures included 25 reoperations for implant removal (resection arthroplasty or revision) and 10 cases pending revision. At latest followup examination, 54.7% of patients considered themselves improved and 62.7% had no or mild pain. Eighty-five percent of cases had radiographic evidence of component migration that was superior and medial in direction. Overall probability of implant survival was 96% at 1 year, but only 47% at 6.5 years postoperatively. Because of the high failure rate, this procedure has a limited role in hip reconstruction, but may be a reasonable part of a staged reconstruction for patients with massive bone loss or in certain revision cases where instability is a concern.

Revision hip endoprosthesis peculiarities after ..

Introduction: The patellar height can influence extensor mechanism and the knee function. Thus, during knee arthroplasty, the surgeon seeks to maintain the correct patellar height. However, it is more difficult to define and maintain the correct patella height in megaprosthesis reconstructions after tumor resections. The objective of this study was to evaluate patellar height after distal femur endoprosthesis reconstruction and its association to knee function. Methods: This retrospective analysis included 108 patients who underwent distal femur resections and endoprosthesis reconstruction. The minimum follow-up was 1 year or until the patients underwent patellar resurfacing or endoprosthesis revision. Patellar height was calculated using Insall-Salvati ratio (ISR) and Insall-Salvati patellar tendon insertion ratio (PTR) at 2 different times: postoperatively and at the final follow-up. The postoperative ratio was calculated using the best postoperative radiograph taken at least 1 month after the procedure. The final measures were based on the radiograph available at the last follow-up consultation. The ISR and PTR were associated to anterior knee pain (AKP), range of motion (ROM), and extension lag (EXL). Results: The average follow-up was 4.5 years. The mean postoperative ISR was 1.02, and the mean ISR at final follow-up was 0.95 (

Clinical trials & studies for Revision of Endoprosthesis-treated Hips
Revision hip endoprosthesis peculiarities after removal of costruc-tions fixed by screw thread

09/01/2018 · A Review of New Thoracic Devices

Our data show there is an increased risk of early revision surgery for the first patients obtaining a knee endoprosthesis model previously unused in a hospital. Patients should be informed if there is a plan to introduce a new model and offered the possibility to choose a conventional endoprosthesis instead. Surgeons should be aware of the risks and preferably practice beforehand with the new model using, eg, cadavers or plastic bone models. Units performing arthroplasties might consider introducing endoprosthesis models. Although introducing potentially better endoprosthesis models is important, there is a need for managed uptake of new technology.

One of the reasons for revision surgery is mechanical failure of the endoprosthesis.

Ewing's Sarcoma FAQ - CancerIndex

In conclusion, treatment of late chronic hip joint infections after THA is a challenging problem. The gold standard remains a two-stage revision arthroplasty using antibiotic-impregnated cement spacers which achieves an infection control rate over 90%. Articulating spacers provide the advantages of maintaining limb length and joint mobility, minimising soft-tissue contracture and scarring, and facilitating second-stage reimplantation and therefore, should be used as the first option of treatment for late chronic hip joint infections.

FDA approves GORE VIABAHN endoprosthesis. W. L. Gore & Associates Inc.'s endoprosthesis is approved for revision of the arteriovenous access.

Cruciate Ligament Disease or Injury - Fitzpatrick Referrals

Based on comparisons of implant survival, the endoprosthesis has an effect on the risk for revision surgery [, , , ]. Although the principles of TKA are relatively constant, instrumentation of implants, like resecting guides and cutting blocks, differ and surgeons must be familiar with the particular instrumentation of each model he or she uses. When implementing computerized navigation or a minimally invasive technique in TKA, some studies have documented a learning curve effect [, , , ]. It could be expected that there would be a learning curve in conventional TKAs as well and that the learning process is related to every brand of endoprosthesis introduced for the first time in a hospital, not just to the first TKAs performed by the surgeon. However, no reliable scientific data exist to confirm this assumption.