Impaction Bone Grafting for Severe Femoral Bone Loss: Surgical Technique in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty. Issue 1 (2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Astore, Franco; Molho, Nicolas M.; Piccaluga, Francisco; Comba, Fernando; Slullitel, Pablo A.; Buttaro, Martín A.
• Is Part Of: JBJS essential surgical techniques. Volume 12:Issue 1(2022)
• Publication Date: 2022
• Subjects: Orthopedic surgery -- Technique -- Periodicals; Orthopedic surgery -- Periodicals; Orthopedics; Orthopedic Procedures; Periodicals; 617.47005
• DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.ST.20.00043
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2160-2204

Abstract

Abstract : Background: 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. Description: 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. Alternatives: 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. Rationale: 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. Expected Outcomes: 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. Important Tips: 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 = postoperative PMMA = polymethyl methacrylate IV = intravenous LMWH = low molecular weight heparin DVT/EP = deep vein thrombosis and extended prophylaxis