Aims Loss or absence of proximal femoral bone in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) remains a significant challenge. While the main indication for the use of proximal femoral replacements (PFRs) is in the treatment of malignant disease, they have a valuable role in revision THA for loosening, fracture and infection in patients with bone loss. Our aim was to determine the clinical outcomes, implant survivorship, and complications of PFRs used in revision THA for indications other than malignancy.
Patients and Methods A retrospective review of 44 patients who underwent revision THA using a PFR between 2000 and 2013 was undertaken. Their mean age was 79 years (53 to 97); 31 (70%) were women. The bone loss was classified as Paprosky IIIB or IV in all patients. The mean follow-up was six years (2 to 12), at which time 22 patients had died and five were lost to follow-up.
Results The mean Harris Hip Score improved from 42.8 (25.9 to 82.9) pre-operatively to 68.5 (21.0 to 87.7) post-operatively (p = 0.0009). A total of two PFRs had been revised, one for periprosthetic infection eight years post-operatively and one for aseptic loosening six years post-operatively. The Kaplan-Meier survivorship free of any revision or removal of an implant was 86% at five years and 66% years at ten years. A total of 12 patients (27%) had a complication including six with a dislocation.
Conclusion PFRs provide a useful salvage option for patients, particularly the elderly with massive proximal femoral bone loss who require revision THA, with significant clinical improvement. While the survivorship of the implant is good at five years, dislocation continues to be the most common complication. The judicious use of larger femoral heads, dual-mobility constructs, or constrained liners may help to minimise the risk of dislocation.
Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:325–9.
A. Viste: Data collection, Data analysis, Manuscript drafting, Manuscript review.
K. I. Perry: Hypothesis generation, Data analysis, Manuscript review.
M. J. Taunton: Hypothesis generation, Data analysis, Manuscript review.
A. D. Hanssen: Hypothesis generation, Manuscript review.
M. P. Abdel: Hypothesis generation, Data collection, Data analysis, Manuscript drafting, Manuscript review.
The author or one or more of the authors have received or will receive benefits for personal or professional use from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article. In addition, benefits have been or will be directed to a research fund, foundation, educational institution, or other non- profit organisation with which one or more of the authors are associated.
This article was primary edited by D. Johnstone and first proof edited by J. Scott.
- Received August 15, 2016.
- Accepted November 28, 2016.
- ©2017 The British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery