Astore Franco, Molho Nicolas M, Piccaluga Francisco, Comba Fernando, Slullitel Pablo A, Buttaro Martín A
Institute of Orthopaedics "Carlos E. Ottolenghi," Italian Hospital of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Hip Surgery Unit, Institute of Orthopaedics "Carlos E. Ottolenghi," Italian Hospital of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
JBJS Essent Surg Tech. 2022 Feb 16;12(1). doi: 10.2106/JBJS.ST.20.00043. eCollection 2022 Jan-Mar.
Revision total hip arthroplasty in the setting of extensive femoral bone loss poses a considerable challenge to the adult reconstructive surgeon. When the proximal femoral bone stock is deficient or absent, there are few options for reconstruction. In such cases, treatment options include distal cementless fixation (either modular or nonmodular), impaction bone grafting (IBG), a megaprosthesis, or even an allograft-prosthesis composite. Each of these procedures has advantages and disadvantages related to bone preservation, surgical timing, and complexity (depending on the learning curve). For its capacity of restoring bone stock, we have been utilizing the IBG technique at our center since August 1987. The aim of the present article was to describe a step-by-step femoral IBG procedure for severe proximal femoral circumferential bone loss, highlighting its current indications and contraindications.
The specific steps to perform this procedure include (1) preoperative planning; (2) positioning of the patient and surgical approach; (3) cautious removal of the previous components; (4) preparation of the bone graft; (5) implantation of the appropriate IBG revision system, restoring bone loss from distal to proximal and utilizing metal mesh as needed; (6) implantation of the new stem, bypassing the defect; and (7) aftercare with protected weight-bearing in order to avoid subsidence of the stem and periprosthetic fracture.
There are several alternatives to the IBG technique in the setting of revision total hip arthroplasty with extensive femoral bone loss. These alternatives include distal cementless fixation (either modular or nonmodular), a megaprosthesis, or an allograft-prosthesis composite.
The rationale for use of the IBG technique is restoration of bone stock. Although this issue may be irrelevant in low-demand elderly patients, we believe it is of the utmost importance among young (i.e., <60 years old) and active patients. This technique is versatile enough to be utilized in different scenarios such as periprosthetic fracture, periprosthetic joint infection (2-stage protocols), and aseptic loosening.
We have reported favorable clinical and radiographic outcomes for the treatment of both aseptic and septic femoral component loosening. In all cases, we utilized vancomycin-supplemented impacted cancellous allograft without evidence of secondary effects with regard to bone incorporation, nephrotoxicity, or allergic reactions. Although it was initially contraindicated, we further extended the indication for this reconstruction alternative to cases of circumferential proximal bone loss with non-neoplastic bone defects of ≤15 cm, utilizing encompassing metal mesh and a bypassing long stem. Recently, we reported on poorer outcomes following IBG compared with the use of uncemented modular stems for the treatment of type B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures, with a significantly higher rate of infection and implant breakage for the former treatment. Nowadays, we advocate the use of this technique in young, active patients (i.e., <60 years old) with a femoral bone defect Paprosky grade IIIB or IV, in which reconstitution of bone stock is crucial to avoid an eventual implant failure in the long term.
This technique requires an experienced team. This procedure should be avoided in the presence of active periprosthetic joint infection.The gluteus maximus tendon should be detached to avoid tensioning the sciatic nerve and to decrease the chance of periprosthetic femoral fracture.Massive bone loss can jeopardize correct implant orientation and restoration of biomechanics. In this scenario, surgeons might consider the intercondylar axis as a guide for femoral version.Try to avoid (if possible) trochanteric or extended trochanteric osteotomy because proximal bone stock is necessary to contain the bone grafts. In some cases, such as those in which the removal of the stem is difficult, especially with certain uncemented stem designs, an extended trochanteric osteotomy must be performed. Whether or not a cemented stem is removed, it is mandatory to remove all remaining cement in the femoral canal.Preoperative templating is a necessity to reconstruct leg length. Accurately determining the length of the mesh is the most important step to avoid shortening or overlengthening of the lower extremity.Approximately 10 cm of circumferential metal mesh should be fixed with 3 to 5 double cerclage metal wires to the remaining bone. The new femoral stem should bypass extend beyond the mesh for approximately 5 cm. If the stem does not bypass the mesh, there is an increased risk of postoperative fracture.In order to decrease the risk of intraoperative femoral fracture, the distal aspect of the femur should be secured with cerclage wires, and the proximal aspect of the femur should also be protected with cerclage wires over the mesh. As in any other complex femoral revision procedure, torsional forces in the supracondylar zone should be avoided, especially during trial or stem reduction maneuvers.Always utilize a bone graft mixed with antibiotic powder.Retrograde cementation must be done with cement that is in a more liquid state than in primary total hip arthroplasty.
ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS: PO = postoperativePMMA = polymethyl methacrylateIV = intravenousLMWH = low molecular weight heparinDVT/EP = deep vein thrombosis and extended prophylaxis.
在广泛股骨骨质流失的情况下进行全髋关节翻修术对成人重建外科医生来说是一项巨大挑战。当股骨近端骨量不足或缺失时,重建选择很少。在这种情况下,治疗选择包括远端非骨水泥固定(模块化或非模块化)、打压植骨(IBG)、巨型假体,甚至同种异体骨-假体复合物。这些手术中的每一种都有与骨保留、手术时机和复杂性(取决于学习曲线)相关的优缺点。由于其恢复骨量的能力,自1987年8月以来我们中心一直在使用IBG技术。本文的目的是描述一种针对严重股骨近端周向骨质流失的分步股骨IBG手术,强调其当前的适应证和禁忌证。
进行该手术的具体步骤包括:(1)术前规划;(2)患者体位和手术入路;(3)谨慎取出先前的假体组件;(4)植骨准备;(5)植入合适的IBG翻修系统,从远端到近端恢复骨缺损,并根据需要使用金属网;(6)植入新的股骨柄,绕过缺损部位;(7)术后护理,进行保护性负重,以避免股骨柄下沉和假体周围骨折。
在广泛股骨骨质流失的全髋关节翻修术中,有几种替代IBG技术的方法。这些替代方法包括远端非骨水泥固定(模块化或非模块化)、巨型假体或同种异体骨-假体复合物。
使用IBG技术的原理是恢复骨量。虽然这个问题在需求较低的老年患者中可能无关紧要,但我们认为在年轻(即<60岁)且活动较多的患者中至关重要。该技术足够通用,可用于不同情况,如假体周围骨折、假体周围关节感染(两阶段方案)和无菌性松动。
我们报告了治疗无菌性和感染性股骨组件松动的良好临床和影像学结果。在所有病例中,我们使用了补充万古霉素的打压松质骨同种异体骨,在骨融合、肾毒性或过敏反应方面没有继发效应的证据。虽然最初是禁忌的,但我们进一步将这种重建替代方法的适应证扩展到近端周向骨质流失且非肿瘤性骨缺损≤15 cm的病例,使用环抱金属网和绕过的长柄。最近,我们报告了与使用非骨水泥模块化股骨柄治疗B3型假体周围股骨骨折相比,IBG术后结果较差前者感染率和植入物断裂率明显更高。如今,我们主张在股骨骨缺损为Paprosky IIIB或IV级的年轻、活动较多的患者(即<60岁)中使用该技术,其中恢复骨量对于避免长期最终植入物失败至关重要。
该技术需要一个经验丰富的团队。在存在活动性假体周围关节感染时应避免进行此手术。应切断臀大肌肌腱,以避免牵拉坐骨神经并降低假体周围股骨骨折的几率。大量骨质流失可能危及正确的植入物定向和生物力学恢复。在这种情况下,外科医生可考虑将髁间轴作为股骨旋转的指导。尽量避免(如果可能)转子或延长转子截骨术,因为近端骨量对于容纳植骨是必要 的。在某些情况下,如取出股骨柄困难时,尤其是某些非骨水泥股骨柄设计,必须进行延长转子截骨术。无论是否取出骨水泥股骨柄,都必须清除股骨髓腔内所有残留的骨水泥。术前模板测量对于重建肢体长度是必要的。准确确定金属网的长度是避免下肢缩短或过长的最重要步骤。大约10 cm的周向金属网应用3至5根双环扎金属丝固定到剩余骨上。新的股骨柄应绕过金属网并超出约5 cm。如果股骨柄不绕过金属网,术后骨折风险会增加。为降低术中股骨骨折的风险,股骨远端应使用环扎钢丝固定,股骨近端也应在金属网上方用环扎钢丝保护。与任何其他复杂的股骨翻修手术一样,应避免在髁上区域产生扭转力,尤其是在试行或股骨柄复位操作期间。始终使用混合抗生素粉末的植骨。逆行骨水泥固定必须使用比初次全髋关节置换术中更稀的骨水泥。
PO = 术后;PMMA = 聚甲基丙烯酸甲酯;IV = 静脉内;LMWH = 低分子量肝素;DVT/EP = 深静脉血栓形成和延长预防。