Hartwig C H, Böhm P, Czech U, Reize P, Küsswetter W
Klinik und Poliklinik für Orthopädie, Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen, Germany.
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1996;115(1):5-9. doi: 10.1007/BF00453209.
Forty-one Wagner revision stems were implanted at the Orthopedic Department of the University of Tübingen between July 1990 and January 1993. We report the results of 37 patients at an average follow-up of 27 months (13-48 months) postoperatively. The main indication was stem loosening with considerable loss of bone. In addition, we used the implant 4 times in primary arthroplasty. At follow-up examination 33 patients (89%) were satisfied with the postoperative outcome. According to the Merle D'Aubigné score (12-point scale), 32 patients showed a poor functional result of less than 6 points preoperatively. Postoperatively, the results of 36 patients could be classified as very good to good. To categorise the radiological destruction of the implant bed, we used the femoral shaft defect classification of the DGOT (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Orthopädie und Traumatologie) in conjunction with the classification of Pak and Paproski [5, 11]. Twenty patients presented with trochanteric and calcar defects, and 11 patients with a combination of a calcar and shaft defect. We found a circular shaft defect in 2 patients. In 7 cases we assessed the bone remodelling postoperatively as very good, with strong newly formed bone structures, and in 25 cases as good, with remodelling of the old stem bed and bony structuring of the osteolyses. A secondary sinking in of the Wagner stem was seen in 7 cases. Only one stem had to be revised because of pain symptoms and loosening; in all other cases a secondary stabilisation of the revision-stem took place. With the Wagner revision stem, there is the possibility of achieving mechanical stability even in situations with massive bone loss. The evacuation of bone cement and granulation tissues is facilitated by the transfemoral approach, bony remodelling is accelerated, and bone grafting is often not necessary. As our short-term results show, the concept is a promising one. Nevertheless, we will be very careful in following these patients in the long term, as we have noticed stem sinkage in a small percentage of cases.
1990年7月至1993年1月期间,图宾根大学骨科共植入了41枚Wagner翻修柄。我们报告了37例患者的结果,术后平均随访27个月(13 - 48个月)。主要指征是柄松动并伴有大量骨质流失。此外,我们在初次关节置换术中使用了该植入物4次。在随访检查中,33例患者(89%)对术后结果满意。根据Merle D'Aubigné评分(12分制),32例患者术前功能结果较差,得分低于6分。术后,36例患者的结果可归类为非常好至良好。为了对植入床的放射学破坏进行分类,我们采用了德国骨科与创伤学会(DGOT)的股骨干缺损分类法,并结合Pak和Paproski的分类法[5, 11]。20例患者出现转子和股骨距缺损,11例患者合并股骨距和骨干缺损。我们发现2例患者存在圆形骨干缺损。7例患者术后骨重塑评估为非常好,有强烈的新形成骨结构,25例患者评估为良好,旧柄床重塑且骨溶解处有骨结构形成。7例患者出现Wagner柄继发性下沉。仅1枚柄因疼痛症状和松动而不得不进行翻修;在所有其他病例中,翻修柄发生了继发性稳定。使用Wagner翻修柄,即使在大量骨质流失的情况下也有可能实现机械稳定性。经股入路便于清除骨水泥和肉芽组织,加速骨重塑,且通常无需植骨。正如我们的短期结果所示,该理念很有前景。然而,由于我们注意到一小部分病例中存在柄下沉情况,我们在长期随访这些患者时会非常谨慎。