Articles   |    
Proximal Femoral Allografts for Reconstruction of Bone Stock in Revision Arthroplasty of the Hip A Nine to Fifteen-Year Follow-up
Hugh R.L. Blackley, BSc, MBChB, FRACS; Aileen M. Davis, BSc, PT, MSc, PhD; Carol R. Hutchison, BSc, MD, MED, FRCSC; Allan E. Gross, MD, FRCSC
View Disclosures and Other Information
Investigation performed at the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Hugh R.L. Blackley, BSc, MBChB, FRACS
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Auckland Hospital, Park Road, Private Bag 92024, Auckland 1, New Zealand
Aileen M. Davis, BSc, PT, MSc, PhD
Carol R. Hutchison, BSc, MD, MED, FRCSC
Allan E. Gross, MD, FRCSC
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Mount Sinai Hospital, 600 University Avenue, Suite 476A, Toronto, ON M5G 1X5, Canada
No benefits in any form have been received or will be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article. No funds were received in support of this study.

J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2001 Mar 01;83(3):346-346
5 Recommendations (Recommend) | 3 Comments | Saved by 3 Users Save Case


Background: Revision of a femoral component in a patient who has severe bone loss is a complex problem that is likely to increase with the increasing numbers of patients who have multiple revision hip arthroplasties. A valuable option in such a situation is use of a long-stem prosthesis that is cemented to a proximal femoral allograft but not to the host bone.

Methods: Between April 1984 and December 1989, sixty-three total hip arthroplasties in sixty consecutive patients were revised with a proximal femoral allograft-prosthesis construct. The average length of the allograft was 15 cm. The average age of the patients at the time of the revision was 62.5 years. All patients had undergone at least one previous total hip arthroplasty, and an average of 3.8 previous total hip arthroplasties had been performed in the series. Each patient was assigned a modified Harris hip score. Radiographs were examined for trochanteric union, allograft-host union, endosteal and periosteal resorption, component loosening, and fracture.

Results: At an average of eleven years (range, nine years and four months to fifteen years) after the revision, forty-five patients were alive, fourteen patients had died, and one patient had been lost to follow-up. The patients who had died or had been lost to follow-up had had a total of fifteen allografts (24%) and had been followed for an average of five years and seven months (range, two years and four months to eight years). The average preoperative Harris hip score for the sixty-three hips was 30 points (range, 6 to 65 points). At the latest follow-up evaluation, the average score for the hips with the original graft in situ was 71 points (range, 47 to 95 points). Five hips failed because of infection, and four of them were successfully revised. Three hips failed because of aseptic loosening, at an average of ten years and three months; two were successfully revised, and the third was awaiting revision at the time of writing. An additional operation was performed in three hips with allograft-host nonunion and in two with dislocation. Success was defined as a postoperative increase in the Harris hip score of greater than 20 points, a stable implant, and no need for additional surgery related to the allograft at the time of the review. The success rate for all hips was 78% (forty-nine of sixty-three) after an average of nine years of follow-up. The success rate for the patients who were alive at the time of follow-up was 77% (thirty-seven of forty-eight hips) after an average of eleven years of follow-up.

Conclusions: The clinical and radiographic results at an average of eleven years after revision hip arthroplasty with a proximal femoral allograft are encouraging. This report represents our early experience; improvements in the technique have been made. We believe that this technique provides a viable option for treatment of the difficult problem of severe femoral bone loss.

Figures in this Article
    Sign In to Your Personal ProfileSign In To Access Full Content
    Not a Subscriber?
    Get online access for 30 days for $35
    New to JBJS?
    Sign up for a full subscription to both the print and online editions
    Register for a FREE limited account to get full access to all CME activities, to comment on public articles, or to sign up for alerts.
    Register for a FREE limited account to get full access to all CME activities
    Have a subscription to the print edition?
    Current subscribers to The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery in either the print or quarterly DVD formats receive free online access to JBJS.org.
    Forgot your password?
    Enter your username and email address. We'll send you a reminder to the email address on record.

    Forgot your username or need assistance? Please contact customer service at subs@jbjs.org. If your access is provided
    by your institution, please contact you librarian or administrator for username and password information. Institutional
    administrators, to reset your institution's master username or password, please contact subs@jbjs.org


    Accreditation Statement
    These activities have been planned and implemented in accordance with the Essential Areas and policies of the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) through the joint sponsorship of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons is accredited by the ACCME to provide continuing medical education for physicians.
    CME Activities Associated with This Article
    Submit a Comment
    Please read the other comments before you post yours. Contributors must reveal any conflict of interest.
    Comments are moderated and will appear on the site at the discretion of JBJS editorial staff.

    * = Required Field
    (if multiple authors, separate names by comma)
    Example: John Doe

    Related Content
    The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery
    JBJS Case Connector
    Topic Collections
    Related Audio and Videos
    PubMed Articles
    Femoral stem impaction grafting: extending the role of cement. Bone Joint J 2013;95-B(11 Suppl A):92-4.
    The treatment of glenohumeral joint osteoarthritis. -American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) | 9/11/2009
    Results provided by:
    Clinical Trials
    Readers of This Also Read...
    JBJS Jobs
    Massachusetts - The University of Massachusetts Medical School
    Louisiana - Ochsner Health System