Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®
Erschienen in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® 3/2017

02.08.2016 | In Brief

Classifications In Brief: The Paprosky Classification of Femoral Bone Loss

verfasst von: David A. Ibrahim, MD, Navin D. Fernando, MD

Erschienen in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® | Ausgabe 3/2017

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Excerpt

Projections suggest that the incidence of revision THA performed in the United States will nearly double by 2030, resulting in as many as 96,700 such procedures per year [2, 18]. Various indications for hip revision exist, including aseptic loosening, periprosthetic joint infection, fracture, recurrent instability, and more recently, adverse local tissue reactions resulting from metal corrosion. Regardless of the cause of the revision, achieving rigid femoral fixation between the implant and the host bone at the time of revision is essential. The extent of femoral bone loss may represent a substantial impediment to achieving this goal, and as such, having a thoughtful approach to evaluating bone loss is very important. …
Literatur
1.
Aribindi R, Barba M, Solomon MI, Arp P, Paprosky W. Bypass fixation. Orthop Clin North Am. 1998;29:319–329.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Bozic KJ, Kurtz SM, Lau E, Ong K, Vail TP, Berry DJ. The epidemiology of revision total hip arthroplasty in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91:128–133.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Brady OH, Garbuz DS, Masri BA, Duncan CP. The reliability and validity of the Vancouver classification of femoral fractures after hip replacement. J Arthroplasty. 2000;15:59–62.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Brown NM, Foran JR, Valle CJ, Moric M, Sporer SM, Levine BR, Paprosky WG. The inter-observer and intra-observer reliability of the Paprosky femoral bone loss classification system. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29:1482–1484.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Chung LH, Wu PK, Chen CF, Chen WM, Chen TH, Liu CL. Extensively porous-coated stems for femoral revision: reliable choice for stem revision in Paprosky femoral type III defects. Orthopedics. 2012;35:e1017–1021.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Cross MB, Paprosky WG. Managing femoral bone loss in revision total hip replacement: fluted tapered modular stems. Bone Joint J. 2013;95(11 suppl A):95–97.
7.
D’Antonio J, McCarthy JC, Bargar WL, Borden LS, Cappelo WN, Collis DK, Steinberg ME, Wedge JH. Classification of femoral abnormalities in total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1993;296:133–139.
8.
Della Valle CJ, Paprosky WG. The femur in revision total hip arthroplasty evaluation and classification. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;420:55–62.
9.
Engelbrecht E, Heinert K. Klassifikation und Behandlungsrichtlinien von Knochensubstanzverlusten bei Revisionsoperationen am Hüftgelenk — mittelfristige Ergebnisse. Primär- und Revisions-Alloarthroplastik Hüft- und Kniegelenk. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag;1987:189–201.
10.
Engh CA, Glassman AH. Cementless revision of failed total hip replacement: an update. In: Tullos HS, ed. Instructional Course Lectures. Vol 40. Chicago, IL: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons;1991:189–197.
11.
Gozzard C, Blom A, Taylor A, Smith E, Learmonth I. A comparison of the reliability and validity of bone stock loss classification systems used for revision hip surgery. J Arthroplasty. 2003;18:638–642.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Gross AE, Allan DG, Lavoie GJ, Oakeshott RD. Revision arthroplasty of the proximal femur using allograft bone. Orthop Clin North Am. 1993;24:705–715.PubMed
13.
Haddad FS, Masri BA, Garbuz DS, Duncan CP. Femoral bone loss in total hip arthroplasty: classification and preoperative planning. Instr Course Lect. 2000;49:83–96.PubMed
14.
Haydon CM, Mehin R, Burnett S, Rorabeck CH, Bourne RB, McCalden RW, MacDonald SJ. Revision total hip arthroplasty with use of a cemented femoral component: results at a mean of ten years. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86:1179–1185.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Johnston RC, Fitzgerald RH Jr, Harris WH, Poss R, Muller ME, Sledge CB. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of total hip replacement: a standard system of terminology for reporting results. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1990;72:161–168.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Klein GR, Parvizi J, Rapuri V, Wolf CF, Hozack WJ, Sharkey PF, Purtill JJ. Proximal femoral replacement for the treatment of periprosthetic fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:1777–1781.PubMed
17.
Krishnamurthy AB, MacDonald SJ, Paprosky WG. 5- to 13-year follow-up study on cementless femoral components in revision surgery. J Arthroplasty. 1997;12:839–847.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:780–785.PubMed
19.
Mallory TH. Preparation of the proximal femur in cementless total hip revision. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988;235:47–60.
20.
Meneghini RM, Hallab NJ, Berger RA, Jacobs JJ, Paprosky WG, Rosenberg AG. Stem diameter and rotational stability in revision total hip arthroplasty: a biomechanical analysis. J Orthop Surg Res. 2006;1:5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
Moon KH, Kang JS, Lee SH, Jung SR. Revision total hip arthroplasty using an extensively porous coated femoral stem. Clin Orthop Surg. 2009;1:105–109.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
Paprosky WG, Aribindi R. Hip replacement: treatment of femoral bone loss using distal bypass fixation. Instr Course Lect. 2000;49:119–130.PubMed
23.
Paprosky WG, Greidanus NV, Antoniou J. Minimum 10-year-results of extensively porous-coated stems in revision hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999;369:230–242.CrossRef
24.
Paprosky WG, Lawrence J, Cameron H. Femoral defect classification: clinical application. Orthop Rev. 1990;19(suppl 9):9–17.
25.
Paprosky WG, Weeden SH. Extensively porous-coated stems in femoral revision arthroplasty. Orthopedics. 2001;24:871–872.PubMed
26.
Parry MC, Whitehouse MR, Mehendale SA, Smith LK, Webb JC, Spencer RF, Blom AW. A comparison of the validity and reliability of established bone stock loss classification systems and the proposal of a novel classification system. Hip Int. 2010;20:50–55.PubMed
27.
Parvizi J, Bender B, Sim F. Revision total hip arthroplasty with femoral bone loss: proximal femoral replacement. In: Wiesel SW, ed. Operative Techniques in Orthopaedic Surgery. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2011:823–830.
28.
Raut VV, Siney PD, Wroblewski BM. Outcome of revision for mechanical stem failure using the cemented Charnley’s stem: a study of 399 cases. J Arthroplasty. 1996;11:405–410.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Saleh KJ, Holtzman J, Gafni A, Saleh L, Davis A, Resig S, Gross AE. Reliability and intraoperative validity of preoperative assessment of standardized plain radiographs in predicting bone loss at revision hip surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83:1040–1046.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Sheth NP, Melnic CM, Rozell JC, Paprosky WG. Management of severe femoral bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty. Orthop Clin N Am. 2015;46:329–342, ix.
31.
Shih ST, Wang JW, Hsu CC. Proximal femoral megaprosthesis for failed total hip arthroplasty. Chang Gung Med J. 2007;30:73–80.PubMed
32.
Sidor ML, Zuckerman JD, Lyon T, Koval K, Cuomo F, Schoenberg N. The Neer classification system for proximal humeral fractures: an assessment of interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993;75:1745–1750.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Siebenrock KA, Gerber C. The reproducibility of classification of fractures of the proximal end of the humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993;75:1751–1755.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Te Stroet MA, Rijnen WH, Gardeniers JW, van Kampen A, Schreurs BW. Satisfying outcomes scores and survivorship achieved with impaction grafting for revision THA in young patients. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473:3867–3875.CrossRef
35.
te Stroet MA, Rijnen WH, Gardeniers JW, van Kampen A, Schreurs BW. The outcome of femoral component revision arthroplasty with impaction allograft bone grafting and a cemented polished Exeter stem: a prospective cohort study of 208 revision arthroplasties with a mean follow-up of ten years. Bone Joint J. 2015;97:771–779.CrossRef
36.
Valle CJ, Paprosky WG. Classification and an algorithmic approach to the reconstruction of femoral deficiency in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85(suppl 4):1–6.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Weeden SH, Paprosky WG. Minimal 11-year follow-up of extensively porous-coated stems in femoral revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2002;17(suppl 1):134–137.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Wraighte PJ, Howard PW. Femoral impaction bone allografting with an Exeter cemented collarless, polished, tapered stem in revision hip replacement: a mean follow-up of 10.5 years. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90:1000–1004.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Yu R, Hofstaetter JG, Sullivan T, Costi K, Howie DW, Solomon LB. Validity and reliability of the Paprosky acetabular defect classification. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471:2259–2265.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadaten
Titel
Classifications In Brief: The Paprosky Classification of Femoral Bone Loss
verfasst von
David A. Ibrahim, MD
Navin D. Fernando, MD
Publikationsdatum
02.08.2016
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® / Ausgabe 3/2017
Print ISSN: 0009-921X
Elektronische ISSN: 1528-1132
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-016-5012-z

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2017

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® 3/2017 Zur Ausgabe

Cochrane in CORR

Cochrane in CORR ®: Intramedullary Nailing for Tibial Shaft Fractures in Adults (Review)

Symposium: 2015 Meetings of the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society and the International Society of Limb Salvage

Is Needle Biopsy Clinically Useful in Preoperative Grading of Central Chondrosarcoma of the Pelvis and Long Bones?

Symposium: 2015 Meetings of the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society and the International Society of Limb Salvage

What Factors Are Associated With Failure of Compressive Osseointegration Fixation?

CORR Insights

CORR Insights®: LUMiC® Endoprosthetic Reconstruction After Periacetabular Tumor Resection: Short-term Results

Symposium: 2015 Meetings of the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society and the International Society of Limb Salvage

LUMiC® Endoprosthetic Reconstruction After Periacetabular Tumor Resection: Short-term Results

CORR Insights

CORR Insights®: Developing an Evidence-Based Followup Schedule for Bone Sarcomas Based on Local Recurrence and Metastatic Progression

Arthropedia

Grundlagenwissen der Arthroskopie und Gelenkchirurgie. Erweitert durch Fallbeispiele, Videos und Abbildungen. 
» Jetzt entdecken

Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

23.04.2024 | Leitsymptom Rückenschmerzen | Nachrichten

Ärztliche Empathie hilft gegen Rückenschmerzen

18.04.2024 | Wirbelsäulenmetastase | Nachrichten

Stereotaktische Radiatio schlägt konventionelle Bestrahlung

16.04.2024 | Spondylitis ankylosans | Nachrichten

Vorsicht mit hohen NSAR-Dosen bei ankylosierender Spondylitis!

15.04.2024 | Knie-TEP | Nachrichten

Brustkrebs in der Vorgeschichte macht Gelenkersatz komplikationsträchtiger
weitere anzeigen

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen
Bildnachweise