
Total Hip Revision Surgery |
Despite the best intentions a hip
replacement will wear out, and surgery to reconstruct
or replace the present hip replacement will become
necessary. Subsequent surgery is referred to
as revision surgery. Revision surgery is generally
more complex than primary surgery because of scarring,
bone loss, increased bleeding, and problems encountered
with implant removal. As mentioned previously,
revision surgery may become necessary for a variety
of reasons. Infection, bone loss, and most commonly
implant loosening. The focus of this discussion
will be on the process of implant loosening referred
to as aseptic loosening (meaning loosening not related
to an infectious process).
Many of the early total hip replacements
were fixed to the bone with a grouting material known
as methylmetharylate more commonly referred to as bone
cement. Over time this bone cement can weaken
leading to cracks within the cement, and eventual implant
loosening. Another common cause of ascetic loosening
is the processes of bone resorption due to the inflammatory
processes set up by the body's immune responses to
plastic wear particles. Aseptic loosening is
more common in young heavy adults, who put increased
stress across their hip joint. It is this increased
force that leads to more rapid plastic wear, particle
formation, and inflammatory bone loss. Another
important mechanism leading to implant failure is improper
implant position. Malposition of implants at
primary surgery can increase the forces across the
hip joint and eventually lead to failure.
It is important to remember that
the process of failure can go on for many years without
causing any pain. When enough bone loss has occurred,
and the implants become loose, the patient will begin
to feel pain. Generally if the acetabulum is
loose the patient will have pain in the groin or buttock,
and if the femoral component becomes loose the patient
will experience pain radiating down the thigh. Often
by the time symptoms have manifested there is extensive
bone loss making revision surgery difficult. Again
this scenario underscores the importance of close annual
clinical and radiographic follow up. Conservative
therapy is generally reserved for the patient who is
asymptotic, has radiographic evidence of extensive
plastic wear, little or nor bone loss, and stable components. If,
however, follow-up reveals progressive bone loss a
liner change and debridement of the bone loss areas
is recommended. This early surgery on the asymptomatic
patient removes the particle producing plastic liner
and settles down the inflammatory response causing
the bone loss. Another option for the asymptomatic
patient with early bone loss and stable components
is Fosamax. This medication is an inhibitor of
osteoporosis. Although it can be associated with
GI discomfort early results suggest that it may prevent
the progression of bone loss associated with the process
of aseptic loosening.
In the unfortunate situation where
there has been extensive bone loss and implant loosening,
revision surgery becomes much more challenging. The
revision surgeon needs to be well equipped with many
surgical techniques allowing for successful reconstruction. A
bone bank may be necessary for reconstruction. This
bone is used as structural support for the new implants
that are placed. Allograft is only used in the
most severe of circumstances where the patients own
bone is so badly destroyed that it is unable to support
the new implants. Ninety percent of the time
there is enough bone present that will allow a reconstruction
without the need for allograft.
Revision surgery is only undertaken
after thorough medical evaluation. Revision surgery
compared to primary surgery is longer, requires more
extensive exposure, is associated with more bleeding,
and is also associated with higher infection and dislocation
rates. Because of this the results of revision
surgery in regards to patient satisfaction and pain
is not as good as that associated with primary surgery. Postoperative
the patient can expect to have more pain and have a
longer rehabilitation period, the specifics of which
depends on the extent and complexity of the surgical
procedure. For example, if allograft has been
used, healing between the host bone and allograft can
take many months. This may necessitate an extended
period of protected weight bearing.
|  |