title: [Revision hip stems: an analysis of the fixation].
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Revision hip replacements are complicated surgeries because the femoral quality is often reduced by large substance losses. Stem fixation in terms of sufficient primary stability is therefore a great challenge for the orthopaedic surgeon.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  The aim of the present study was to examine two currently used prostheses in Germany (MHP and MRP) concerning their ability to securely bridge femoral defects.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Up to a segmental metaphyseal defect, both stems showed sufficient fixation in our experimental setup. However, because of its predominantly distal fixation, the MRP stem would unnecessarily bridge proximal bone areas still capable of load bearing. In the presence of a transfemoral approach, the surgeon should favour the distal fixation mode because in this situation the proximal fixation option is absent. Therefore, the isthmus takes a key role for both stem designs.
authors.affiliation: Abteilung Orthopädie, DRK-Klinik Baden-Baden, Baden-Baden, Deutschland.
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Thomsen
authors.forename: J P
authors.initials: JP
authors.lastname: Kretzer
authors.forename: C
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Heisel
authors.forename: C
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Lee
authors.forename: J
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Nadorf
authors.forename: E
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Jakubowitz
mesh_terms: D019544:Equipment Failure Analysis; D006622:Hip Prosthesis; D006801:Humans; D016268:Internal Fixators; D011474:Prosthesis Design; D012086:Reoperation / Q000295:instrumentation
references.citation: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2004 Jun;124(5):306-9
references.pmid: 15064958
references.citation: J Arthroplasty. 1998 Aug;13(5):535-45
references.pmid: 9726319
references.citation: Herzschrittmacherther Elektrophysiol. 2007 Sep;18(3):166-93
references.pmid: 17891493
references.citation: Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1986 Jul;(208):108-13
references.pmid: 3720113
references.citation: Instr Course Lect. 2000;49:83-96
references.pmid: 10829164
references.citation: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003 Jan;85(1):109-14
references.pmid: 12533580
references.citation: J Biomech. 1993 Aug;26(8):969-90
references.pmid: 8349721
references.citation: Int Orthop. 2000;24(3):134-8
references.pmid: 10990382
references.citation: Acta Orthop Scand. 2000 Apr;71(2):111-21
references.pmid: 10852315
references.citation: J Orthop Trauma. 2000 Nov;14(8):546-53
references.pmid: 11149500
references.citation: Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994 Jan;(298):119-26
references.pmid: 8118966
references.citation: J Biomed Mater Res. 1977 Nov;11(6):811-38
references.pmid: 591524
references.citation: J Biomech Eng. 2002 Dec;124(6):706-13
references.pmid: 12596639
references.citation: Orthopade. 1989 Sep;18(5):344-9
references.pmid: 2682454
references.citation: Unfallchirurg. 2001 Jul;104(7):622-8
references.pmid: 11490955
references.citation: Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb. 1996 Mar-Apr;134(2):99-110
references.pmid: 8779267
references.citation: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1989 Jun;71(5):716-8
references.pmid: 2732261
references.citation: Orthopade. 2004 Jan;33(1):63-7
references.pmid: 14747912
references.citation: Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1993 Nov;(296):133-9
references.pmid: 8222415
references.citation: Unfallchirurgie. 1993 Feb;19(1):11-5
references.pmid: 8465463
references.citation: Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb. 2004 May-Jun;142(3):314-21
references.pmid: 15250004
references.citation: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1978 Apr;60(3):306-13
references.pmid: 649633
references.citation: Unfallchirurg. 2000 Jun;103(6):444-51
references.pmid: 10925646