Duke University Medical Center, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Durham, NC.
Section of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
J Arthroplasty. 2020 May;35(5):1333-1338. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2019.12.032. Epub 2019 Dec 31.
High rates of aseptic loosening with cemented prostheses have led to increased utilization of uncemented stems in the setting of megaprosthetic reconstruction. Theoretic concerns of rotational instability resulted in early stem designs with de-rotational mechanisms such as flutes or side plates. However, these designs have their own associated complications, and mechanical data suggest they are unnecessary. The purpose of this study is to evaluate outcomes and survivorship of an unfluted diaphyseal press-fit stem in the setting of megaprosthetic reconstruction.
Forty-five patients (46 stems), with a minimum 3-year follow-up, underwent reconstruction using 1 of 2 fully porous coated, unfluted, press-fit stems between 2005 and 2013: revision stem with adapter to the megaprosthesis (revision stem), or custom megaprosthesis stem (custom stem). Complications were described using the Henderson classification system, and subanalyses evaluated stem-related failures and survival. Radiographic evaluation of stem fixation was determined via evidence of bone bridging, spot welding, resorption, subsidence, and pedestal formation. Four patients had early stem removal for local recurrence or infection and were thus excluded from the radiographic analyses.
Twenty-eight femoral (15 revision stem, 13 custom stem) and 14 tibial (6 revision stem, 8 custom stem) stems were reviewed. Average follow-up was 81 months (range, 42-140 months). Revision for implant-related complications occurred in 7 of 41 (17%), all in revision stems (3 adapter failures, 4 polyethylene wear). At final follow-up, all stems were retained without evidence of aseptic loosening, although 7 of 41 (17%) exhibited mild stress shielding.
A non-fluted, press-fit stem used with a tumor prosthesis provided a stable bone-prosthesis interface at midterm follow-up.
由于骨水泥型假体存在较高的无菌性松动率,因此在大型假体重建中越来越多地使用非骨水泥型假体。早期的假体设计采用了防旋机制,如刻槽或侧钢板,以解决旋转不稳定性的理论问题。然而,这些设计本身存在相关并发症,且力学数据表明这些设计并非必需。本研究旨在评估非刻槽骨干加压配合假体在大型假体重建中的应用效果和生存率。
2005 年至 2013 年间,45 例(46 个假体)患者接受了重建治疗,其中使用了 2 种完全多孔涂层、非刻槽、加压配合假体中的 1 种:带有与大型假体连接适配器的翻修假体(翻修假体)或定制的大型假体假体(定制假体)。采用 Henderson 分类系统描述并发症,并进行亚分析评估与假体相关的失败和生存率。通过骨桥接、点焊、吸收、下沉和基座形成等证据来评估假体固定的影像学表现。4 例患者因局部复发或感染而早期取出假体,因此被排除在影像学分析之外。
共回顾了 28 个股骨假体(15 个翻修假体,13 个定制假体)和 14 个胫骨假体(6 个翻修假体,8 个定制假体)。平均随访时间为 81 个月(范围,42-140 个月)。41 例中有 7 例(17%)发生与假体相关的并发症需要翻修,均为翻修假体(3 例适配器失败,4 例聚乙烯磨损)。末次随访时,所有假体均未发生无菌性松动,但 41 例中有 7 例(17%)出现轻度应力遮挡。
在中期随访中,使用非刻槽、加压配合的假体与肿瘤假体结合,可在假体与骨界面提供稳定的固定。