Download PDF
Z Orthop Unfall 2013; 151(3): 243-247
DOI: 10.1055/s-0032-1328630
Arbeitsgemeinschaft Endoprothetik
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Erweiterte Zugänge bei Hüftprothesenwechseln und Muskelschonung. Geht das?

Extended Approach in Hip Revision and Preservation of the Muscles. Is That Possible?
B. Fink
Klinik für Endoprothetik, Allgemeine und Rheumaorthopädie, Orthopädische Klinik Markgröninigen
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
14 June 2013 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Für die Revision von Hüftendoprothesen sind verschiedene Standard- und erweiterte Zugänge zur Darstellung und kontrollierten Entfernung der Prothese bzw. Reimplantation einer neuen Prothese möglich, die allesamt ihre Vor- und Nachteile haben. Sie sollten eine gute Darstellung erlauben und unkontrollierte Schädigungen des Knochens (v. a. Devaskularisierung und Frakturen) und der Weichteile vermeiden. Als erweiterten Zugang bevorzugen wir den transfemoralen Zugang nach Wagner in einer modifizierten Technik. Er ist unseres Erachtens indiziert bei Hüftprothesenwechseln mit gebrochenen Endoprothesenstielen, einer durch die Lockerung bedingten Achsabweichung des Femurs, einem deutlich ausgedünnten, frakturgefährdeten Knochen, einem stabilen Zementmantel, einem teilfixierten zementlosen Prothesenstiel und bei einer periprothetischen Fraktur. In einer eigenen, publizierten Studie zeigten 68 Patienten mit Hüftprothesenwechsel über einen modifizierten transfemoralen Zugang einen kontinuierlichen Anstieg des Harris Hip Scores von präoperativ 41,4 auf 85,9 Punkte 24 Monate postoperativ. Der Knochendeckel wies in 98,5 % eine knöcherne Konsolidierung auf. Zwei postoperativ entstandene Trochanterabrisse heilten ohne weitere Maßnahme knöchern ein. Der transfemorale Zugang erlaubt als erweiterter Zugang eine sichere Schonung des M. gluteus medius und der vastoglutealen Schlinge, was reproduzierbar gute klinische Ergebnisse erzielen lässt.

Abstract

For revision of hip prostheses several standard and extended approaches can be used. The goal of these approaches is a good visualisation with minimal trauma of the bone and its vascularisation as well as of the muscles. Of the extended approaches we prefer the transfemoral approach in a modified technique. This approach is indicated when the stem of the endoprosthesis is broken, when the femoral axis has shifted because of stem loosening, or when the bone has become noticeably thin, which by itself or in combination would greatly increase the risk of an intraoperative fracture or perforation. Similarly, it is indicated in cases in which the cement mantle was stable, when a periprosthetic fracture of Vancouver B2 or B3 type is present or when a loose cementless stem with a coarsely porous surface cannot be removed in an endofemoral manner. In a published study of 68 patients with hip revisions using this modified transfemoral approach, we could see a continuous increase of the Harris hip score from 41.4 points preoperatively to 85.9 points 24 months postoperatively. Healing of the bony flap was seen in 98.5 % of the cases. Two postoperative non-dislocated trochanter fractures could be treated conservatively. The transfemoral approach is an extended approach with sparing of the gluteal muscles and the vasto-gluteal sling. Reproducible good clinical results can be achieved.

Schlüsselwörter

Revision - Hüfttotalendoprothese - transfemoraler Zugang - Zugang - Muskeltrauma

Key words

revision - hip arthroplasty - extended trochanteric osteotomy - approach - muscle trauma
 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Svensson O, Sköld S, Blomberg G. Integrity of the gluteus medius after the transgluteal approach in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 1990; 5: 57-60
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Suh KT, Roh HL, Moon KP et al. Posterior approach with posterior soft tissue repair in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2008; 23: 1197-1203
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Masri BA, Campbell DG, Garbuz DS et al. Seven specialized exposures for revision hip and knee replacement. Orthop Clin North Am 1998; 29: 229-240
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Jando VT, Greidanus NV, Masri BA et al. Trochanteric osteotomies in revision total hip arthroplasty: Contemporary techniques and results. Instr Cours Lect 2005; 54: 143-155
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Wagner H. Revisionsprothese für das Hüftgelenk bei schwerem Knochenverlust. Orthopäde 1987; 16: 295-300
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Wagner H. Revisionsprothese für das Hüftgelenk. Orthopäde 1989; 18: 438-453
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Wagner H, Wagner M. Femur-Revisionsprothese. Z Orthop 1993; 131: 574-577
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Wagner H, Wagner M. Hüftprothesenwechsel mit der Femur-Revisionsprothese. Erfahrungen von 10 Jahren. Med Orth Tech 1997; 117: 138-148
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Mardones R, Gonzalez C, Cabanela ME et al. Extended femoral osteotomy for revision of hip arthroplasty: results and complications. J Arthoplasty 2005; 20: 79-83
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Glassman AH. Exposure for revision: total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004; 420: 39-47
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Della Valle CJ, Berger RA, Rosenberg AG et al. Extended trochanteric osteotomy in complex primary total hip arthroplasty. A brief note. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003; 85: 2385-2390
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Huffman GR, Ries MD. Combined vertical and horizontal cable fixation of an extended trochanteric osteotomy site. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003; 85: 273-277
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Paprosky WG, Weeden SH, Bowling jr. JW. Component removal in revision total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2001; 393: 181-193
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Miner TM, Momberger NG, Chong D et al. The extended trochanteric osteotomy in revision hip arthroplasty: a critical review of 166 cases at mean 3-year, 9-month follow-up. J Arthroplasty 2001; 16: 188-194
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Chen WM, McAuley JP, Engh jr. CA et al. Extented slide trochanteric osteotomy for revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2000; 82: 1215-1219
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Younger TI, Bradford MS, Magnus RE et al. Extended proximal femoral osteotomy. A new technique for femoral revision arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 1995; 10: 329-338
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Peters jr. PC, Head WC, Emerson jr. RH. An extended trochanteric osteotomy for revision total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1993; 75: 158-159
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Lim SJ, Moon YW, Park YS. Is extended trochanteric osteotomy safe for use in 2-stage revision of periprosthetic hip infection?. J Arthroplasty 2011; 26: 1067-1071
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 De Man FH, Sendi P, Zimmerli W et al. Infectiological, functional, and radiographic outcome after revision for prosthetic hip infection according to a strict algorithm. 22 one-stage and 50 two-stage revisions with a mean follow-up time of 5 (2–17) years. Acta Orthop 2011; 82: 27-34
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Fink B, Grossmann A, Fuerst M et al. Two-stage cementless revision of infected hip endoprostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009; 467: 1848-1858
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Fink B, Grossmann A, Schulz MS. Bone regeneration in the proximal femur following implantation of modular revision stems with distal fixation. Archiv Orthop Trauma Surg 2011; 131: 465-470
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Fink B, Grossmann A, Schubring S et al. A modified transfemoral approach using modular cementless revision stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2007; 462: 105-114
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Fink B, Grossmann A. Modifizierter transfemoraler Zugang zum Wechsel von Hüftendoprothesen mit modularen zementlos implantierbaren Revisionsschäften. Operat Orthop Traumatol 2007; 19: 32-55
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 MacDonald SJ, Cole C, Guerin J et al. Extended trochanteric osteotomy via the direct lateral approach in revision hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2003; 417: 210-216
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Aribindi R, Paprosky W, Nourbash P et al. Extended proximal femoral osteotomy. Instr Course Lect 1999; 48: 19-26
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Morshed S, Huffman R, Ries MD. Extended trochanteric osteotomy for 2-stage revision of infected total hip arthroplasty. J Arthoplasty 2005; 20: 294-301
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Wilkes RA, Birch J, Pearse MF et al. The Wagner technique for revision arthroplasty of the hip: a review of 24 cases. J Orthop Rheumatol 1994; 7: 196-198
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Kolstad K, Adalberth G, Mallmin H et al. The Wagner revision stem for severe osteolysis. 31 hips followed for 1.5-5 years. Acta Orthop Scand 1996; 67: 541-544
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Hartwig C-H, Böhm P, Czech U et al. The Wagner revision stem in alloarthroplasty of the hip. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 1996; 115: 5-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Grünig R, Morscher E, Ochsner PE. Three- to 7-year results with the uncemented SL femoral revision prosthesis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 1997; 116: 187-197
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Wagner M, Wagner H. The transfemoral approach for revision of total hip replacement. Oper Orthop Traumatol 1999; 11: 278-295
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Isacson J, Stark A, Wallensten R. The Wagner revision prosthesis consistently restores femoral bone structure. Int Orthop 2000; 24: 139-142
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Böhm P, Bischel O. Femoral revision with the Wagner SL revision stem. Evaluation of one hundred and twenty-nine revisions followed for a mean of 4.8 years. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2001; 83: 1023-1031
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Böhm P, Bischel O. The uncemented diaphyseal fixation of femoral revision stems in case of large bone defects – Analysis of twelve years experience with the Wagner SL revision stem. Z Orthop 2001; 139: 229-239
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Warren PJ, Thompson P, Flechter MD. Transfemoral implantation of the Wagner SL stem. The abolition of subsidence and enhancement of osteotomy union rate using Dall-Miles cables. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2002; 122: 557-560
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Fink B, Grossmann A, Singer J. Hip revision arthroplasty in periprosthetic fractures of Vancouver Type B2 and B3. J Orthop Trauma 2012; 26: 206-211
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Fink B, Grossmann A, Fuerst M. Distal interlocking screws with a modular revision stem for revision total hip arthroplasty in severe bone defects. J Arthroplasty 2010; 25: 759-765
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar