Logo of The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery (Br)
Quick search:        
          Advanced Search
Guest Access | Sign In
Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - British Volume, Vol 91-B, Issue 1, 24-30.
doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.91B1.20906  
Copyright © 2009 by British Editorial Society of Bone and Joint Surgery
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow My Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Landor, I.
Right arrow Articles by Sosna, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Landor, I.
Right arrow Articles by Sosna, A.

The Long Oblique Revision component in revision arthroplasty of the hip

I. Landor, MD, PhD, Assistant Professor1; P. Vavrik, MD, PhD, Assistant Professor1; D. Jahoda, MD, PhD, Assistant Professor1; D. Pokorny, MD, PhD, Assistant Professor1; A. Tawa, MD, Orthopaedic Surgeon1; and A. Sosna, MD, PhD, Professor1

1 1st Orthopaedic Clinic, Medical Faculty Charles, University, Prague V Úvalu 84, 150 05 Prague 5, Czech Republic.

Correspondence should be sent to Dr I. Landor at Na Vinobraní, 15, 106 00 Praha 10, Czech, Republic; e-mail: landor{at}atlas.cz

Migration of the acetabular component may give rise to oval-shaped bone defects in the acetabulum. The oblong implant is designed to fill these defects and achieve a stable cementless anchorage with no significant bone loss. We prospectively reviewed 133 oblong long oblique revision components at a mean follow-up of 9.74 years (0.6 to 14). All had been used in revisions for defects of type IIB to IIIB according to Paprosky. Aseptic loosening was the reason for revision in 11 cases (8.3%) and deep infection in seven (5.3%). The probability of implant survival over a 12-year follow-up estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method gave a survival rate of 0.85% respectively 0.90% when deep infection was excluded as the endpoint.

Our study supports the use of these components in defects from IIB to IIIA. The main precondition for success is direct contact of more than half of the surface of the implant with the host acetabular bone.






(c) British Editorial Society of Bone and Joint Surgery All Rights Reserved
Registered charity no: 209299     Print ISSN: 0301-620X
Hip, Knee, Trauma, Upper limb, Foot & Ankle, Paediatrics, Oncology, Spine, Arthroplasty, General