A Technique for Decision-Making in Cementless Femoral Revision Hip Arthroplasty. Issue 1 (January 2013)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Flecher, Xavier; Buord, Jean-Marc; Blanc, Guillaume; Sainsou, Benjamin; Argenson, Jean-Nöel
• Is Part Of: Hip international. Volume 23:Issue 1(2013)
• Page Start: 60
• Page End: 65
• Publication Date: 2013-01
• Subjects: Hip revision arthroplasty -- Treatment -- Femoral bone loss -- Classification system -- Decision algorithm -- Reliability; Hip joint -- Pathophysiology -- Periodicals; Hip joint -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Hip joint -- Surgery -- Periodicals; 617.581005
• DOI: 10.5301/HIP.2013.10723
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1120-7000

Abstract

Classification systems for femoral revision of a failed THA fail to address several of the more critical determinants. The aim of the present study was to assess the reliability of a simplified algorithm for decision making during cementless reconstruction for femoral loosening with respect to stem length, stem design and the need for an extended trochanteric osteotomy. Four observers with different levels of clinical experience blindly assessed 40 X-rays of hips scheduled for a femoral revision. Intra-observer and inter-observer reliability of 4 radiographic criteria were assessed: 1) diaphyseal bone loss extension to the isthmus; 2) proximal femoral remodelling; 3) presence of cement; and 4) cortical thickness. Inter-observer agreement relating to the four criteria was good (κ = 0.66) for the extension to isthmus, moderate (κ = 0.57) for proximal femoral remodelling and very good for presence of cement (κ = 1) and cortical thickness (κ = 0.88). Intra-observer agreement was good for extension to isthmus and proximal femoral remodelling and very good for presence of cement and cortical thickness. Based on these criteria, an algorithm has been developed to describe 4 reconstruction options. The algorithm seems reliable for decision making during femoral cementless revision, but research into comparison with intraoperative findings is still required. Level of evidence: Level II, Development of diagnostic criteria on consecutive patients.