• Aucun résultat trouvé

TOTAL HIP ARTHROPLASTY FOLLOWING HIP FUSION!

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2022

Partager "TOTAL HIP ARTHROPLASTY FOLLOWING HIP FUSION!"

Copied!
29
0
0

Texte intégral

(1)

TOTAL HIP ARTHROPLASTY FOLLOWING HIP FUSION!

!

Indications, Surgical Technique, Results"

L Kerboull, M. Hamadouche, M. Kerboull"

Paris, France"

(2)

INTRODUCTION!

! Hip ankylosis"

- total loss of mobility"

- “spontaneous” VS surgical (arthrodesis)"

- degenerative or infectious process"

- young patients!

! Long-term:"

! !- over-stress related osteoarthritis"

! !- ipsilateral knee and low back pain"

"

! ! ! !(Callaghan et al JBJS 1985, Sponseller et al JBJS 1984)!

(3)

! Durable stable and painless hip!

! Conversion to total hip arthroplasty:"

- technically difficult"

- morbidity"

- hip stability and mobility"

- long-term results!

! Think twice +++!

???!

(4)

Malposition in adduction!

Medial femoro-tibial compartment!

Varus!

(5)

Malposition in abduction!

Lateral femoro-tibial compartment!

Valgus!

(6)

Malposition in flexion!

(7)

Malposition in rotation!

(8)

Anatomic modifications!

•  Frequently in high position (CDH)!

•  Protrusion!

•  Greater trochanter!

•  Gluteus muscles"

"

!

(9)

Indications!

•  Mobility!

•  Sitting / Walking disability!

•  Degenerative changes on the ipsilateral knee and low back requiring surgery"

"

! !Conversion of the fused hip to THA first!

•  Periarticular muscles (gluteus +++)"

- CT scan"

- electromyogram"

-

palpation of the contracting abductors"

and intra-operative findings!

(10)

Surgical technique!

Preoperative planning and templates +++!

Multiple radiographic views!

Approach: trans-trochanteric!

Specimen for cultures!

(11)

Templating: osteotomy level!

(12)

Surgical technique!

Inferior margin!

TRIAL REDUCTION!

GREATER TROCHANTER FIXATION! Specific antibiotics!

(13)

RESULTS !

•  45 THAs 1969 - 1993 (19 men, 36 women)!

•  Single surgeon series (MK)!

•  Initial diagnosis:"

TB 26, CDH: 9, septic: 5, OA: 3, Perthes: 1, unknown: 1 !

•  “Spontaneous” ankylosis ! ! 20 hips"

Surgical ankylosis ! !25 hips (intra 11, extra 10, comb 4)"

"

Exclusion criteria: fibrous ankylosis, ankylosing spondylithis !

(14)

•  Malposition in 36 hips (80%)!

•  Perceptible contraction of the abductors!

•  Indication for THA"

! ! !- isolated low back pain 22"

! ! !- isolated knee pain 6"

! ! !- association 15"

! ! !- walking disability 1!

•  Neighboring joints:"

! !Lumbar spine"

!moderate OA 20 , severe OA 6, OA + scoliosis 11"

! !Knee"

!Uni-compartmental femoro-tibial OA 14, TriC 7 (4 severe) "

!

(15)

•  Mean age : 55.8 ± 12.3 years (28-80)!

•  Mean duration: 35.7 ± 14.2 years (3-65)"

spontaneous 43.8 years VS 31.1 years arthrodesis"

! ! ! !(p = 0,004)

!

•  Prosthesis:

Mc Kee - Farrar 1,Charnley 5, CMK 39

!

(16)

•   Follow-up: 8.5 ± 3.4 years (5 to 20 years)!

•  LTFU: 0!

•  Five patients deceased 6.2 years (5-8)!

•  Revised: 2"

! - Stem migration and osteolysis (7 years)"

!- Unknown reason (8.6 years)!

(17)

COMPLICATIONS!

•  2 DVT associated to non fatal PE!

•  1 sciatic nerve palsy (complete recovery)!

•  1 deep hematoma!

•  1 inguinal abscess"

! !- Tuberculosis"

! !- untreated"

! !- specific ATB + lavage!

(18)

CLINICAL RESULTS!

•  Mean functional Merle d’Aubigné hip score:"

!- pre-operative:! !11,3 ± 0,7"

!- 1 year FU: ! !15,6 ± 0,4"

!- last FU: ! ! !16,5 ± 1,5!

•  Excellent: ! ! !12 ! !(26,6 %)"

Very good: ! ! ! 20 ! !(44,4 %)"

Good: ! ! ! ! 9 ! !(20 %)"

Fair: ! ! ! ! 2 ! !(4,4 %)"

Poor : ! ! ! ! 1 ! !(2,2 %)"

Bad: ! ! ! ! 1 ! !(2,2 %)!

p < 10-4 p = 0,02

(19)

0!

1!

2!

3!

4!

5!

6!

Pain! Walking ability! Mobility!

6" 5,9"

5,1" 5,4" 5,1" 5,3"

p = 0,157!

p = 0,049" p = 0,160!

1 year FU"

Last FU"

Mean flexion: 88°± 23° (30 - 130°)

(20)

•  Predictive factor"

! ! GLUTEUS MUSCLES!

•  Three categories (intra-operative findings)"

!Type 1: poor, very thin but continuous"

!Type 2: fair, pink, quite thin"

!Type 3: satisfactory, red, bleeding, quite thick!

(21)

0!

2!

4!

6!

8!

10!

12!

14!

Type 1! Type 2! Type 3!

Number oh hips!

Limp (Score 3 to 5)!

Normal gait (Score = 6)!

p < 0,02

(22)

•  Lower back pain:"

- reduced or unchanged (97 %)"

- increased 1 case with scoliosis"

! ! !lumbar arthrodesis at 6 years!

•  Knee pain:"

- reduced or unchanged (90 %)"

- increased 2 cases ! ! !"

! ! !"

! ! !total knee arthroplasty at 4 years and 14 years !

Results in the neighboring joints

(23)

Survival rate

Surv. Inf. 95 p. cent Surv. Sup. 95 p. cent

91.0 %

0 20 40 60 80 100

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Follow-up (years)

% not revised

Survival of the arthroplasty

Failure = Revision

(24)

Survival rate

Surv. Inf. 95 p. cent Surv. Sup. 95 p. cent

0 20 40 60 80 100

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Follow-up (years)

95.1 %

% not operated

Survival knee and spine

Failure = TKA and/or lumbar arthrodesis

(25)

•  Arthroplasty survival:"

!«#Spontaneous ankylosis#» !100% at 8 years"

!Arthrodesis ! ! ! !94.6% at 8 years"

! ! !Kilgus et al JBJS 1990, Strathy et al JBJS 1988"

! !"

! !Effective procedure"

! !Results maintained > 10 years"

! !Effective on neighboring joints"

! ! ! !Gluteus muscles state !

N.S.

(26)

Bal...preop Bal ...1 y

Bal...3 y Bal...7 y

(27)

Ber...preop Ber...8 y

(28)

Ble...preop Ble...15 y

(29)

Références

Documents relatifs

We therefore aimed to analyse 3D anatomy of the fused hip based on pre-operative computed tomography (CT) scans, functional outcomes based on the Harris Hip Score (HHS) and the Hip

The purpose of this study was to report the rate of complications using a short stem implanted through the direct anterior approach (DAA), and to evaluate mid-term clinical

Tsukada S, Wakui M (2015) Lower dislocation rate following total hip arthroplasty via direct anterior approach than via posterior approach: five-year-average follow-up results.

[19] agree to observe an improvement in gait speed according to the minimally invasive approach (ALP, PLP) then the standard pathways (AP, Transgluteal Pathway and Posterior

The software of the robotic arm offers the ability to plan the position of implants using the patient ’ s anatomical landmarks with respect to the native acetabular geometry,

The purpose of this study is to assess the complications and the revision rate of a consecutive series of primary ceramic-on- ceramic THA couplings by direct anterior approach with

CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first case of a fungal PJI with Candida parapsilosis after a THA treated with a two-stage revision arthroplasty without spacer and a

Surgeons, who rated their expectations according to pre- operative function in our previous findings [23], were more reliable in predicting postoperative outcome than patients, who