Skip to main content
Erschienen in: European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology 7/2023

Open Access 27.02.2023 | General Review

Extended trochanteric osteotomy is a safe procedure in two-stage hip revision: a systematic review of the literature

verfasst von: Giorgio Cacciola, Fortunato Giustra, Francesco Bosco, Alessandro Aprato, Federico De Meo, Pietro Cavaliere, Daniele Vezza, Matteo Giachino, Luigi Sabatini, Alessandro Massè

Erschienen in: European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology | Ausgabe 7/2023

Abstract

Background

Extended trochanteric osteotomy (ETO) has proved to be an effective technique in complicated stem removal in femoral aseptic loosening or periprosthetic fracture. Debate remains about its safety in periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). The primary aim of this study is to analyze the ETO reinfection and union rate in two-stage hip revision.

Material and methods

A systematic literature review was performed regarding all studies reporting ETO outcomes in the two-stage revision for hip PJI up to October 2022, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses criteria. A literature search was conducted in the following databases: MEDLINE/EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane. Quality assessment of the articles was performed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies. This systematic review was registered in the International Prospective Registry of Systematic Reviews. Patient demographic, clinical, and surgical data were collected.

Results

This systematic review included and analyzed nine clinical studies with a total of 382 ETO PJI hips in two-stage revision. The overall ETO reinfection rate was 8.9% (34 hips), consistent with the reinfection rate after two-stage revision in patients without ETO. The overall ETO union rate was 94.8% (347 hips), comparable to the ETO union rate in non-septic patients. Compared between a group of patients with ETO PJI and a group of patients with non-PJI ETO, there were no significant differences in postoperative complications, both septic and aseptic, and for postoperative HHS.

Conclusion

ETO proved to be a safe and effective procedure in PJI revisions. It may be a viable option in challenging femoral stem removal during the two-stage hip revision in PJI.

Level of evidence

IV.
Hinweise

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Introduction

Extended trochanteric osteotomy (ETO) is a well-validated surgical procedure characterized by a proximal femur osteotomy to facilitate a stable stem extraction while reducing periprosthetic risk fracture [13]. ETO allows cement or metal hardware removal through femoral canal access and correcting lower limb length discrepancies or femoral rotation defects [4].
Several publications demonstrated that ETO is a safe and effective procedure in aseptic revision [35]. Malahias et al. [6], in their systematic review, reported an osteotomy flap healing rate of 93.1 percentage (%), significant stem subsidence greater than 5 mm in 7.1% of cases, and a postoperative complication rate of 8.1% from a total of 1378 ETOs executed for aseptic revision total hip arthroplasty (THA).
ETO may also be performed in the first stage of a two-stage hip revision for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) treatment; however, its application is controversial [79]. Despite numerous advantages, such as easier femoral stem extraction, better medullary canal exposure to facilitate debridement, and eventual cement or other metal hardware removal [8], important concerns persist. First, cables or cerclages used to fix the osteotomy flap could increase the reinfection rate; in addition, the presence of infection and eventual flap reopening during the reimplantation could raise flap nonunion risk [9].
The primary purposes of this systematic review are to evaluate safety in terms of recurrent infection, intraoperative fractures incidence, osteotomy flap healing rate and time in patients with PJI in whom ETO was performed during resection arthroplasty. Secondary aims include postoperative complications such as dislocation, fracture or loosening and patient-reported outcome scores (PROMs).

Materials and methods

Study design and methodology

A systematic review of the current literature up to October 1, 2022, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) criteria [10, 11], was conducted for studies in which ETO was performed as part of a two-stage revision for hip PJI [12]. A search of the US national library of Medicine (MEDLINE/EMBASE), Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Database of systematic reviews databases with the following key terms in association with the Boolean operators AND, OR: “extended trochanteric osteotomy,” “ETO,” “transfemoral approach,” “periprosthetic joint infection,” and “PJI.”

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Two independent authors (GC and FB) reviewed the titles and abstracts of the literature, searching for relevant articles on ETO in patients with hip PJI. A third author (FG) was consulted to resolve any doubts. Titles and abstracts of full-text articles were reviewed for inclusion and exclusion criteria. Studies that met the following criteria were included: studies written in English, original clinical studies investigating the outcomes of ETO in hip PJI, studies with at least ten patients, and studies that clearly provide the rate of recurrence of infection and the rate of recovery of ETO. Studies written in non-English, case reports, preclinical studies, book chapters, technical reports, editorials, biomechanical reports or literature reviews, studies using ETO in non-PJI patients, studies that do not clearly report the reinfection rate or union rate of ETO were excluded from the analysis. Studies published after October 2022 were also excluded from the analysis.

Search strategy and study screening

A total of 172 studies were identified. After the exclusion of duplicates, 132 studies were examined. After title and abstract screening, 21 clinical studies were assessed for full-text evaluation, and nine clinical studies [79, 1318] that met the inclusion criteria were finally included in this systematic review. The bibliography of each article was cross-checked to find other relevant publications for inclusion in the current study. The PRISMA flowchart for study selection and search strategy is shown in Fig. 1 [10, 11].

Methodological quality assessment

Each article included in this systematic review was evaluated following the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine criteria [19]. Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) score [20] was used by two authors (GC and FB) to analyze the included studies' quality. A third author (FG) was consulted to resolve any additional uncertainties. This systematic review was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), CDR: CRD42022364300 [21, 22].

Data collection

Two independent authors (GC and FG) performed data extraction of relevant studies that met the inclusion criteria. In addition, study data (first author, year of publication, study design, and quality), demographic data (number of hips, patients lost to follow-up or deceased, mean age at surgery, gender), and clinical data (reinfection rate, osteotomy flap healing rate and healing time, postoperative non-septic complications, and PROMs) were collected.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed with R software, version 4.0.5 (2020; R Core Team, Vienna, Austria). Descriptive statistical analysis was performed for all data obtained from the included studies. Continuous variables were calculated using mean values with a measure of variability as a range (minimum–maximum) or standard deviation (SD). Categorical variables were evaluated using absolute number and frequency distribution. A P value less than or equal to 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Included studies

A total of 387 ETO PJI hips were initially included in the analysis. After excluding patients who died from causes unrelated to surgical treatment or patients with data missing or lost to follow-up, 382 ETO PJI hips were included in the final analysis. There were 193 (50.5%) women, with a mean age of 64.9 (52.6–71.3) years. The mean time of follow-up was 4.7 (2–5.7) years. The results of methodological quality were performed with the MINORS score, and the results are reported in Table 1.
Table 1
Study characteristics and patient demographics
Author and publication year
LoE
MINORS score
N° of hips, initial cohort/final cohort
N° of hips lost to follow-up and/or died
Age
Gender female
Follow-up
N°/N°
N° (%)
y.o., Mean ± SD/(range)*
N° (%)
Years, mean ± SD/(range)*
Morshed et al. 2005 [7]
IV
6
13/13
0 (0%)
52.6 (40–82.2)
5 (38.5%)
2 ± 1.1
Levine et al. 2009 [8]
IV
8
23/23
0 (0%)
61.7 (30–85)
15 (60%)
4.1 (2–7)
Lim et al. 2011 [9]
III
16
23/23
0 (0%)
58.5 (33–79)
12 (52.2%)
5.3 (2–10.3)
Fink et al. 2016 [13]
IV
9
81/76
5 (6.2%)
70.7 ± 9.8
37 (48.7%)
4.3 (2–9.8)
Petrie et al. 2017 [14]
IV
8
102/102
0 (0%)
67 (33–83)
56 (54.9%)
5.7 (0.1–14.4)
Shi et al. 2019 [15]
III
12
48/48
0 (0%)
59.3 (30–78)
19 (39.6%)
6 (2.1–11.8)
Hardt et al. 2021 [16]
III
16
32/32
0 (0%)
71.3 ± 10.5
21 (65.6%)
5.5 (3.2–7.5)
Lancaster et al. 2021 [17]
III
12
16/16
0 (0%)
63 ± 9
11 (68.8%)
2
Whittaker et al. 2022 [18]
III
16
49/49
0 (0%)
62 (32–86)
19 (38.8%)
2.9 (0.1–12.1)
N°: number of evaluation cases; LoE: levels of evidence; MINORS score: Methodological index for non-randomized studies score; %: percentage; SD: standard deviation; y.o.: years old; *: if SD was not reported, values range were recorded

Rate and time of union and reinfection rate of ETO

Eight studies reported the ETO union rate [79, 1316, 18]. An average ETO union rate after two-stage revision for hip PJI of 94.8% was reported. The union rate ranges from a lower mean of 87.3% [14] to a mean of 100% reported in three studies [7, 9, 18]. Five studies reported the ETO union time [79, 13, 15]. A mean ETO union time after a two-stage revision for PJI of the hip of 12 (10.6–15.6) weeks was reported. All nine studies [79, 1318] reported the postoperative ETO reinfection rate in the setting of a two-stage revision for hip PJI. The overall reinfection rate was 8.9%. The rate ranged from an average of 2.9% [14] to an average of 23.1% [7] (Table 2).
Table 2
Union rate and time and reinfection rate of ETO
Author and publication year
N° of Hips
ETO union rate
ETO union time
ETO reinfection rate
N° (%)
Weeks, N°
N° (%)
Morshed et al. 2005 [7]
13
13 (100%)
15.6
3 (32.1%)
Levine et al. 2009 [8]
23
22 (95.7%)
11.5
3 (13%)
Lim et al. 2011 [9]
23
23 (100%)
10.6
1 (4.3%)
Fink et al. 2016 [13]
76
75 (98.7%)
12
5 (6.6%)
Petrie et al. 2017 [14]
102
89 (87.3%)
N/A
3 (2.9%)
Shi et al. 2019 [15]
48
45 (93.8%)
12
2 (4.2%)
Hardt et al. 2021 [16]
32
31 (96.9%)
N/A
4 (12.5%)
Lancaster et al. 2021 [17]
16
N/A
N/A
3 (18.8%)
Whittaker et al. 2022 [18]
49
49 (100%)
N/A
10 (20.4%)
Overall
382
347 (94.8%)*
12**
34 (8.9%)
N°: number of evaluation cases; %: percentage; ETO: Extended Trochanteric Osteotomy; N/A: not available; *: Overall union rate ETO excluding cases from Lancaster et al. [17]. **: Overall union time ETO excluding cases from Petrie et al. Hardt et al. Lancaster et al. Whittaker et al. [14, 1618]

Postoperative complications

Eight studies reported postoperative complications [79, 1316, 18]. The overall complication rate was 17.7%. The recurrent dislocation was the most frequent postoperative complication in 8.2% of cases (30 of 366 cases), followed by stem subsidence > 5 mm in 4.1%, periprosthetic fracture in 3% (11 of 366 cases), heterotopic ossification in 1.6%, aseptic loosening in 0.5%, and sciatic nerve palsy in 0.3% (Table 3).
Table 3
Non-septic complications and PROMs
Author and publication year
No° of hips
Dislocation
Periprosthetic fracture
Aseptic loosening
Sciatic Nerve palsy
Heterotopic ossification
Stem subsidence > 5 mm
HHS pre/post
N° (%)
N° (%)
N° (%)
N° (%)
N° (%)
N° (%)
N°/N°, mean
Morshed et al. 2005 [7]
13
4 (30.8%)
3 (6.1%)
1 (7.7%)
0 (0%)
6 (46.2%)
3 (23.1%)
25/68
Levine et al. 2009 [8]
23
2 (8.7%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
N/A*
Lim et al. 2011 [9]
23
1 (4.3%)
2 (4.2%)
0 (0%)
1 (4.3%)
0 (0%)
1 (4.3%)
36.1/81.1
Fink et al. 2016 [13]
76
5 (6.6%)
4 (3.9%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
5 (6.6%)
46.9/86.6
Petrie et al. 2017 [14]
102
4 (3.9%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
n/a
Shi et al. 2019 [15]
48
4 (8.3%)
2 (8.7%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
30.2/85.7
Hardt et al. 2021 [16]
32
4 (12.5%)
0 (0%)
1 (3.1%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
4 (12.5%)
37.9/65.9
Whittaker et al. 2022 [18]
49
6 (12.2%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
2 (4.1%)
N/A
Overall
366
30 (8.2%)
11 (3%)
2 (0.5%)
1 (0.3%)
6 (1.6%)
15 (4.1%)
38.5/71.7
N°: number of evaluation cases; mm: millimeters; HHS: Harris Hip Score; N/A: not available; %: percentage; Pre: preoperative; post: postoperative; *Reported the mean preoperative and postoperative modified D'Aubigne and Postel scores from a mean preoperative of 2.4 for pain and 2.6 for ambulation to a mean postoperative of 5.3 for pain and 4.9 for walking

PROMs

Five studies (192 cases) reported the mean preoperative and postoperative Harris Hip Score (HHS) [7, 9, 13, 15, 16]. The mean preoperative HHS was 38.5 (25–46.9), while the mean postoperative HHS was 71.7 (65.9–81.1). One study evaluated the modified D'Aubigne and Postel score, reporting an improvement in the pain subscale from a mean of 2.4 to a mean of 5.3 and in the walking subscale from a mean of 2.6 to a mean of 4.9 [8] (Table 3).

Analysis of comparative studies

Five studies included in this systematic review were comparative [9, 1518]. Three studies compared a group of patients with ETO PJI with a group of patients with non-ETO PJI. The most outstanding result was that in two of them, the rate of re-debridement for persistent signs of infection was lower for the ETO PJI group [15, 16], and in one study [15], the reinfection rate was lower in the ETO PJI group. No significant differences were reported for the other variables evaluated. Two studies [9, 18] compared a group of ETO PJI patients with non-PJI ETO patients. The most important result was the absence of significant differences in postoperative complications, both septic and aseptic, and for postoperative HHS. Table 4 summarizes the results of the comparative studies analyzed.
Table 4
Summary of findings of comparative studies between ETO PJI versus non-ETO PJI, and ETO PJI versus non-PJI ETO patients
Findings*
ETO PJI versus non-ETO PJI patients
ETO PJI versus non-PJI ETO patients
Hardt et al. 2021 [16]
Lancaster et al. 2021 [17]
Shi et al. 2019 [15]
Whittaker et al. 2022 [18]
Lim et al. 2011 [9]
Reinfection rate
 = 
 = 
 = 
N/A
ETO union rate
N/A
N/A
N/A
 = 
 = 
Re-debridement
N/A
N/A
N/A
Femoral stem subsidence
 = 
 = 
 = 
 = 
 = 
Dislocation
 = 
 = 
 = 
 = 
 = 
Periprosthetic fracture
 = 
 = 
 = 
 = 
 = 
Postop HHS
 = 
N/A
 = 
N/A
 = 
Follow-up
 = 
 = 
 = 
 = 
 = 
ETO: Extended Trochanteric Osteotomy; PJI: periprosthetic joint infection; Harris Hip Score: HHS; N/A: not available; ↑: Better outcomes in ETO-PJI patients; = : No differences between groups of patients; *: No worse outcome were reported in ETO-PJI patients

Discussion

The most important finding of this systematic review was that ETO, in two-stage hip revision in PJI, demonstrated excellent clinical outcomes providing an optimal osteotomy flap healing rate (94.8%), low recurrent infection incidence (8.9%), and femoral component subsidence greater than 5 mm (4.1%). Despite these results, a high postoperative aseptic complications rate of 17.7%, mainly represented by recurrent dislocations, periprosthetic fractures, and stem subsidence higher than 5 mm, was reported [79, 1316, 18]. Current literature established that ETO fixed with cerclages may be a safe procedure in patients with a stable and well-fixed femoral stem that underwent two-stage hip revision [18]. Furthermore, other devices, such as trochanteric plates, were discouraged due to potentially increasing infection recurrence risk [7, 16].
Another important result was the lower re-debridement rate in patients who underwent the ETO procedure compared to non-ETO [15, 16]. This finding could be related to better femoral canal and acetabulum visualization, ensuring complete and thorough debridement and accurate cement removal [7, 8].
Regarding PROMs, the studies included in this systematic review demonstrated that ETO was an effective procedure that did not affect patients' long-term clinical and functional outcomes. Three studies analyzed two groups of patients, ETO and non-ETO, with hip PJI. Compared with preoperative one, postoperative HHS improved in all the patients, but no statistically significant differences were reported between ETO and non-ETO groups [13, 15, 16]. Lim et al. compared patients undergoing ETO procedures for hip PJI or revision aseptic THA. Similarly, no statistically significant differences were described between the two groups analyzed [9].

Osteotomy flap healing

The ETO healing rate in PJI revisions was 94.8% and occurred in an average of 12 weeks [9, 1316, 18]. These results were comparable to Malahias et al.'s systematic review, where an ETO healing rate of 93.1% was described in aseptic hip revisions [6]. Two studies that compared one group of ETO-PJI procedures with another of ETO in the aseptic hip revision reported no significant difference in the overall ETO union rate [9, 18]. In addition, Whittaker et al., in their cohort of 49 patients, examined possible variations between wires or cables flap fixation, reporting no differences in union and reinfection rates and no cases of osteotomy flap non-union [18]. Lim et al. [19] observed a higher ETO healing rate, although not statistically significant, in the PJI group than in the aseptic revision one, describing healing rates of 100% and 98%, respectively.

Reinfection

The overall reinfection rate of patients undergoing ETO for hip PJI was 8.9% significantly higher than the 1.5–2% PJI rate after primary THA [28, 29] but comparable to the overall reinfection rate of 8.4% reported in the literature after two-stage hip revision for PJI [30]. Among the studies included in this systematic review, Morshed et al. reported the highest reinfection rate (three cases, 32.1%) [7]. Two patients were being treated with immunosuppressive therapy and underwent further two-stage revision, reporting no clinical infection signs at the last follow-up; the third patient was affected by a persistent infection due to Candida albicans and died postoperatively for his poor clinical condition [7]. Levine et al. reported a case in which recurrent infection occurred a few weeks after reimplantation [8]. This patient developed non-union ETO that was treated with an allograft composite transplant, wire removal, and chronic suppressive antibiotic therapy.

Dislocation

The postoperative recurrent dislocation rate in patients undergoing ETO for PJI was 8.2%. Morshed et al. [7] reported the highest dislocation rate of 31% of cases, while an incidence higher than 10% was reported by Hardt et al. [16] and Whittaker et al. [18]. Although patients who underwent ETO in a two-stage hip revision had a higher dislocation frequency than primary THA patients, there were no significant differences in dislocation rate, about 10% according to the most recent literature and registry data, between ETO-PJI procedures and non-ETO THA septic or aseptic revision [3134]. Several risk factors that could increase postoperative hip instability were described in the included studies. Morshed et al. [7] reported an important correlation between the recurrent dislocation rate and a severe bone defect of at least Paprosky type III and IV for the acetabular side and Paprosky type III for the femoral component. The abductor muscles' deficiency or weakness, often compromised after multiple surgeries, is another significant risk factor for the recurrent dislocation rate [8]. Conversely, as reported in several studies [27, 28], adequate soft tissue tensioning and sparing may be a protective factor against postoperative hip instability. Lim et al. [9] suggest using articulating spacers instead of cement beads to reduce postoperative dislocation rates.

Limitations

This systematic review had some limitations that need to be discussed. First, the study quality was relatively low, as reflected by the mean MINORS score. A meta-analysis was not performed because there were no level I or II studies. The total number of patients included was quite small due to the rarity of the ETO procedure in PJI. Third, ETO techniques and fixations methods were different among the included studies, which may influence the outcomes analyzed. Further studies with a larger patient sample and homogeneity of techniques for performing ETO and fragment fixation could improve data validity.

Conclusions

ETO in two-stage hip revision is a safe and successful procedure, with a reinfection rate of 8.9%, comparable with two-stage hip revision without ETO procedure, and a fragment healing rate of 94.8% in line with the ETO healing rate in non-septic hip revision. These results suggest that ETO could be safely performed in hip PJI with a stable femoral component to reduce intra-operative fractures, characterized by worse clinical results, during stem and cement removal.

Declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​4.​0/​.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Unsere Produktempfehlungen

e.Med Interdisziplinär

Kombi-Abonnement

Für Ihren Erfolg in Klinik und Praxis - Die beste Hilfe in Ihrem Arbeitsalltag

Mit e.Med Interdisziplinär erhalten Sie Zugang zu allen CME-Fortbildungen und Fachzeitschriften auf SpringerMedizin.de.

e.Med Orthopädie & Unfallchirurgie

Kombi-Abonnement

Mit e.Med Orthopädie & Unfallchirurgie erhalten Sie Zugang zu CME-Fortbildungen der Fachgebiete, den Premium-Inhalten der dazugehörigen Fachzeitschriften, inklusive einer gedruckten Zeitschrift Ihrer Wahl.

Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Sundaram K, Siddiqi A, Kamath AF, Higuera-Rueda CA (2020) Trochanteric osteotomy in revision total hip arthroplasty. EFORT Open Rev 5(8):477–485CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Sundaram K, Siddiqi A, Kamath AF, Higuera-Rueda CA (2020) Trochanteric osteotomy in revision total hip arthroplasty. EFORT Open Rev 5(8):477–485CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Jarit GJ, Sathappan SS, Panchal A, Strauss E, Di Cesare PE (2007) Fixation systems of greater trochanteric osteotomies: biomechanical and clinical outcomes. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 15(10):614–624CrossRefPubMed Jarit GJ, Sathappan SS, Panchal A, Strauss E, Di Cesare PE (2007) Fixation systems of greater trochanteric osteotomies: biomechanical and clinical outcomes. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 15(10):614–624CrossRefPubMed
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Hamad K, Konan S (2022) Extended trochanteric osteotomy in revision hip arthroplasty: a case series study and systematic literature review. Arthroplasty 4(1):14CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Hamad K, Konan S (2022) Extended trochanteric osteotomy in revision hip arthroplasty: a case series study and systematic literature review. Arthroplasty 4(1):14CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Wronka KS, Gerard-Wilson M, Peel E, Rolfson O, Cnudde PHJ (2020) Extended trochanteric osteotomy: improving the access and reducing the risk in revision THA. EFORT Open Rev 5(2):104–112CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Wronka KS, Gerard-Wilson M, Peel E, Rolfson O, Cnudde PHJ (2020) Extended trochanteric osteotomy: improving the access and reducing the risk in revision THA. EFORT Open Rev 5(2):104–112CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Collado A, Arvinius C, Serrano L, Otero J, Moro E, Marco F (2022) Cerclage wire fixation of trochanteric osteotomies in complex hip revision: our experience and comparison with cable-plate fixation. Hip Int 32(5):672–676CrossRefPubMed Collado A, Arvinius C, Serrano L, Otero J, Moro E, Marco F (2022) Cerclage wire fixation of trochanteric osteotomies in complex hip revision: our experience and comparison with cable-plate fixation. Hip Int 32(5):672–676CrossRefPubMed
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Malahias MA, Gkiatas I, Selemon NA, De Filippis R, Gu A, Greenberg A et al (2020) Outcomes and risk factors of extended trochanteric osteotomy in aseptic revision total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review. J Arthroplasty 35(11):3410–3416CrossRefPubMed Malahias MA, Gkiatas I, Selemon NA, De Filippis R, Gu A, Greenberg A et al (2020) Outcomes and risk factors of extended trochanteric osteotomy in aseptic revision total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review. J Arthroplasty 35(11):3410–3416CrossRefPubMed
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Morshed S, Huffman GR, Ries MD (2005) Extended trochanteric osteotomy for 2-stage revision of infected total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 20(3):294–301CrossRefPubMed Morshed S, Huffman GR, Ries MD (2005) Extended trochanteric osteotomy for 2-stage revision of infected total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 20(3):294–301CrossRefPubMed
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Levine BR, Della Valle CJ, Hamming M, Sporer SM, Berger RA, Paprosky WG (2009) Use of the extended trochanteric osteotomy in treating prosthetic hip infection. J Arthroplasty 24(1):49–55CrossRefPubMed Levine BR, Della Valle CJ, Hamming M, Sporer SM, Berger RA, Paprosky WG (2009) Use of the extended trochanteric osteotomy in treating prosthetic hip infection. J Arthroplasty 24(1):49–55CrossRefPubMed
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Lim SJ, Moon YW, Park YS (2011) Is extended trochanteric osteotomy safe for use in 2-stage revision of periprosthetic hip infection? J Arthroplasty 26(7):1067–1071CrossRefPubMed Lim SJ, Moon YW, Park YS (2011) Is extended trochanteric osteotomy safe for use in 2-stage revision of periprosthetic hip infection? J Arthroplasty 26(7):1067–1071CrossRefPubMed
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP et al (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 6(7):e1000100CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP et al (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 6(7):e1000100CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD et al (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 29(372):n71CrossRef Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD et al (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 29(372):n71CrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Fink B, Oremek D (2016) The transfemoral approach for removal of well-fixed femoral stems in 2-stage septic hip revision. J Arthroplasty 31(5):1065–1071CrossRefPubMed Fink B, Oremek D (2016) The transfemoral approach for removal of well-fixed femoral stems in 2-stage septic hip revision. J Arthroplasty 31(5):1065–1071CrossRefPubMed
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Petrie MJ, Harrison TP, Buckley SC, Gordon A, Kerry RM, Hamer AJ (2017) Stay short or go long? Can a standard cemented femoral prosthesis be used at second-stage total hip arthroplasty revision for infection following an extended trochanteric osteotomy? J Arthroplasty 32(7):2226–2230CrossRefPubMed Petrie MJ, Harrison TP, Buckley SC, Gordon A, Kerry RM, Hamer AJ (2017) Stay short or go long? Can a standard cemented femoral prosthesis be used at second-stage total hip arthroplasty revision for infection following an extended trochanteric osteotomy? J Arthroplasty 32(7):2226–2230CrossRefPubMed
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Shi X, Zhou Z, Shen B, Yang J, Kang P, Pei F (2019) The use of extended trochanteric osteotomy in 2-stage reconstruction of the hip for infection. J Arthroplasty 34(7):1470–1475CrossRefPubMed Shi X, Zhou Z, Shen B, Yang J, Kang P, Pei F (2019) The use of extended trochanteric osteotomy in 2-stage reconstruction of the hip for infection. J Arthroplasty 34(7):1470–1475CrossRefPubMed
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Hardt S, Leopold VJ, Khakzad T, Pumberger M, Perka C, Hipfl C (2021) Extended trochanteric osteotomy with intermediate resection arthroplasty is safe for use in two-stage revision total hip arthroplasty for infection. J Clin Med 11(1):36CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Hardt S, Leopold VJ, Khakzad T, Pumberger M, Perka C, Hipfl C (2021) Extended trochanteric osteotomy with intermediate resection arthroplasty is safe for use in two-stage revision total hip arthroplasty for infection. J Clin Med 11(1):36CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Lancaster AJ, Carlson VR, Pelt CE, Anderson LA, Peters CL, Gililland JM (2021) High rates of spacer fracture in the setting of extended trochanteric osteotomy with a specific thin-core articulating antibiotic hip spacer. J Arthroplasty 36(6):2178–2183CrossRefPubMed Lancaster AJ, Carlson VR, Pelt CE, Anderson LA, Peters CL, Gililland JM (2021) High rates of spacer fracture in the setting of extended trochanteric osteotomy with a specific thin-core articulating antibiotic hip spacer. J Arthroplasty 36(6):2178–2183CrossRefPubMed
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Whittaker MJ, Arora P, Huddleston JI III, Goodman SB, Maloney WJ, Amanatullah DF (2023) The impact of exchanging cerclage fixation after extended trochanteric osteotomy in revision total hip arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection. J Arthroplasty 38(2):367–371CrossRefPubMed Whittaker MJ, Arora P, Huddleston JI III, Goodman SB, Maloney WJ, Amanatullah DF (2023) The impact of exchanging cerclage fixation after extended trochanteric osteotomy in revision total hip arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection. J Arthroplasty 38(2):367–371CrossRefPubMed
19.
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Slim K, Nini E, Forestier D, Kwiatkowski F, Panis Y, Chipponi J (2003) Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg 73(9):712–716CrossRefPubMed Slim K, Nini E, Forestier D, Kwiatkowski F, Panis Y, Chipponi J (2003) Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg 73(9):712–716CrossRefPubMed
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Sideri S, Papageorgiou SN, Eliades T (2018) Registration in the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) of systematic review protocols was associated with increased review quality. J Clin Epidemiol 100:103–110CrossRefPubMed Sideri S, Papageorgiou SN, Eliades T (2018) Registration in the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) of systematic review protocols was associated with increased review quality. J Clin Epidemiol 100:103–110CrossRefPubMed
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Bosco F, Giustra F, Crivellaro M, Giai Via R, Lavia AD, Capella M et al (2022) Is augmentation the best solution in partial anterior cruciate ligament tears? A literature systematic review and meta-analysis. J Orthop 36:11–17CrossRefPubMed Bosco F, Giustra F, Crivellaro M, Giai Via R, Lavia AD, Capella M et al (2022) Is augmentation the best solution in partial anterior cruciate ligament tears? A literature systematic review and meta-analysis. J Orthop 36:11–17CrossRefPubMed
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Zhang B, Du Y, Zhang Y, Dong Y, Zhang T, Zhou Y (2022) Comparison of functional and radiographic outcomes between two fixation methods for extended trochanteric osteotomy in revision total hip arthroplasty: a retrospective cohort study. J Arthroplasty 37(9):1844–1850CrossRefPubMed Zhang B, Du Y, Zhang Y, Dong Y, Zhang T, Zhou Y (2022) Comparison of functional and radiographic outcomes between two fixation methods for extended trochanteric osteotomy in revision total hip arthroplasty: a retrospective cohort study. J Arthroplasty 37(9):1844–1850CrossRefPubMed
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Drexler M, Dwyer T, Chakravertty R, Backstein D, Gross AE, Safir O (2014) The outcome of modified extended trochanteric osteotomy in revision THA for Vancouver B2/B3 periprosthetic fractures of the femur. J Arthroplasty 29(8):1598–1604CrossRefPubMed Drexler M, Dwyer T, Chakravertty R, Backstein D, Gross AE, Safir O (2014) The outcome of modified extended trochanteric osteotomy in revision THA for Vancouver B2/B3 periprosthetic fractures of the femur. J Arthroplasty 29(8):1598–1604CrossRefPubMed
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Wieser K, Zingg P, Dora C (2012) Trochanteric osteotomy in primary and revision total hip arthroplasty: risk factors for non-union. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 132(5):711–717CrossRefPubMed Wieser K, Zingg P, Dora C (2012) Trochanteric osteotomy in primary and revision total hip arthroplasty: risk factors for non-union. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 132(5):711–717CrossRefPubMed
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Mancino F, Di Matteo V, Mocini F, Cacciola G, Malerba G, Perisano C et al (2021) Survivorship and clinical outcomes of proximal femoral replacement in non-neoplastic primary and revision total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 22(Suppl 2):933CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Mancino F, Di Matteo V, Mocini F, Cacciola G, Malerba G, Perisano C et al (2021) Survivorship and clinical outcomes of proximal femoral replacement in non-neoplastic primary and revision total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 22(Suppl 2):933CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Lakstein D, Kosashvili Y, Backstein D, Safir O, Gross AE (2010) Modified extended trochanteric osteotomy with preservation of posterior structures. Hip Int 20(1):102–108CrossRefPubMed Lakstein D, Kosashvili Y, Backstein D, Safir O, Gross AE (2010) Modified extended trochanteric osteotomy with preservation of posterior structures. Hip Int 20(1):102–108CrossRefPubMed
28.
Zurück zum Zitat De Meo F, Cacciola G, Bellotti V, Bruschetta A, Cavaliere P (2018) Trabecular Titanium acetabular cups in hip revision surgery: mid-term clinical and radiological outcomes. Hip Int 28(2_suppl):61–65CrossRefPubMed De Meo F, Cacciola G, Bellotti V, Bruschetta A, Cavaliere P (2018) Trabecular Titanium acetabular cups in hip revision surgery: mid-term clinical and radiological outcomes. Hip Int 28(2_suppl):61–65CrossRefPubMed
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Acuña AJ, Do MT, Samuel LT, Grits D, Otero JE, Kamath AF (2022) Periprosthetic joint infection rates across primary total hip arthroplasty surgical approaches: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 653,633 procedures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 142(10):2965–2977CrossRefPubMed Acuña AJ, Do MT, Samuel LT, Grits D, Otero JE, Kamath AF (2022) Periprosthetic joint infection rates across primary total hip arthroplasty surgical approaches: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 653,633 procedures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 142(10):2965–2977CrossRefPubMed
31.
Zurück zum Zitat De Martino I, Strigelli V, Cacciola G, Gu A, Bostrom MP, Sculco PK (2019) Survivorship and clinical outcomes of custom triflange acetabular components in revision total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review. J Arthroplasty 34(10):2511–2518CrossRefPubMed De Martino I, Strigelli V, Cacciola G, Gu A, Bostrom MP, Sculco PK (2019) Survivorship and clinical outcomes of custom triflange acetabular components in revision total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review. J Arthroplasty 34(10):2511–2518CrossRefPubMed
32.
Zurück zum Zitat Grosso MJ, Kozaily E, Cacciola G, Parvizi J (2021) Characterizing femoral and acetabular bone loss in two-stage revision total hip arthroplasty for infection. J Arthroplasty 36(1):311–316CrossRefPubMed Grosso MJ, Kozaily E, Cacciola G, Parvizi J (2021) Characterizing femoral and acetabular bone loss in two-stage revision total hip arthroplasty for infection. J Arthroplasty 36(1):311–316CrossRefPubMed
33.
Zurück zum Zitat de Steiger RN, Lewis PL, Harris I, Lorimer MF, Graves SE (2022) What is the outcome of the first revision procedure of primary THA for osteoarthritis? A study from the Australian orthopaedic association national joint replacement registry. Clin Orthop Relat Res 480(10):1952–1970CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral de Steiger RN, Lewis PL, Harris I, Lorimer MF, Graves SE (2022) What is the outcome of the first revision procedure of primary THA for osteoarthritis? A study from the Australian orthopaedic association national joint replacement registry. Clin Orthop Relat Res 480(10):1952–1970CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
34.
Zurück zum Zitat Hoskins W, Corfield S, Lorimer M, Peng Y, Bingham R, Graves SE et al (2022) Is the revision rate for femoral neck fracture lower for total hip arthroplasty than for hemiarthroplasty? A comparison of registry data for contemporary surgical options. J Bone Joint Surg Am 104(17):1530–1541CrossRefPubMed Hoskins W, Corfield S, Lorimer M, Peng Y, Bingham R, Graves SE et al (2022) Is the revision rate for femoral neck fracture lower for total hip arthroplasty than for hemiarthroplasty? A comparison of registry data for contemporary surgical options. J Bone Joint Surg Am 104(17):1530–1541CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Extended trochanteric osteotomy is a safe procedure in two-stage hip revision: a systematic review of the literature
verfasst von
Giorgio Cacciola
Fortunato Giustra
Francesco Bosco
Alessandro Aprato
Federico De Meo
Pietro Cavaliere
Daniele Vezza
Matteo Giachino
Luigi Sabatini
Alessandro Massè
Publikationsdatum
27.02.2023
Verlag
Springer Paris
Erschienen in
European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology / Ausgabe 7/2023
Print ISSN: 1633-8065
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-1068
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-023-03497-y

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 7/2023

European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology 7/2023 Zur Ausgabe

Arthropedia

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

Mehr Frauen im OP – weniger postoperative Komplikationen

21.05.2024 Allgemeine Chirurgie Nachrichten

Ein Frauenanteil von mindestens einem Drittel im ärztlichen Op.-Team war in einer großen retrospektiven Studie aus Kanada mit einer signifikanten Reduktion der postoperativen Morbidität assoziiert.

„Übersichtlicher Wegweiser“: Lauterbachs umstrittener Klinik-Atlas ist online

17.05.2024 Klinik aktuell Nachrichten

Sie sei „ethisch geboten“, meint Gesundheitsminister Karl Lauterbach: mehr Transparenz über die Qualität von Klinikbehandlungen. Um sie abzubilden, lässt er gegen den Widerstand vieler Länder einen virtuellen Klinik-Atlas freischalten.

Klinikreform soll zehntausende Menschenleben retten

15.05.2024 Klinik aktuell Nachrichten

Gesundheitsminister Lauterbach hat die vom Bundeskabinett beschlossene Klinikreform verteidigt. Kritik an den Plänen kommt vom Marburger Bund. Und in den Ländern wird über den Gang zum Vermittlungsausschuss spekuliert.

TEP mit Roboterhilfe führt nicht zu größerer Zufriedenheit

15.05.2024 Knie-TEP Nachrichten

Der Einsatz von Operationsrobotern für den Einbau von Totalendoprothesen des Kniegelenks hat die Präzision der Eingriffe erhöht. Für die postoperative Zufriedenheit der Patienten scheint das aber unerheblich zu sein, wie eine Studie zeigt.

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

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