Extended Trochanteric Osteotomy Closure Performed Before or After Canal Preparation and Stem Impaction Does Not...

An extended trochanteric osteotomy (ETO) safely addresses femoral component removal during challenging revision total hip arthroplasty. However, no prior study has evaluated whether a difference in axial stability exists between ETO closure performed before (reconstitution) or after (scaffolding) canal preparation and stem impaction. We hypothesized that given the absence of clinical reports of outcome differences despite the wide use of both practices, no significant difference in the initial axial stability would exist between the 2 fixation techniques.

ETOs were performed and repaired using the reconstitution technique for the 6 right-sided femora and the scaffolding technique for the six left-sided femora. The 195-mm long, 3.5°-tapered splined titanium monobloc stems were impacted into 6 matched pairs of human fresh cadaveric femora. Three beaded cables were placed in a standardized fashion on each specimen, 1 for prophylaxis against osteotomy propagation during reaming/impaction and 2 to close the ETO. Stepwise axial loading was performed to 2600 N or until failure, which was defined as subsidence >5 mm or femoral/cable fracture.

All specimens successfully resisted axial testing, with no stem in either ETO repair group subsiding >2 mm. The mean subsidence for the reconstitution group was 0.9 ± 0.4 mm, compared to 1.2 ± 0.5 mm for the scaffolding group (P = .2).

In this cadaveric model with satisfactory proximal bone stock, no difference existed between the reconstitution and scaffolding ETO repair techniques, and both provide sufficient immediate axial stability in a simulated revision total hip arthroplasty setting under physiologic loads.