<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE root>
<article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:ali="http://www.niso.org/schemas/ali/1.0/" article-type="other" dtd-version="1.2" xml:lang="en"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">Traumatology and Orthopedics of Russia</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title xml:lang="en">Traumatology and Orthopedics of Russia</journal-title><trans-title-group xml:lang="ru"><trans-title>Травматология и ортопедия России</trans-title></trans-title-group></journal-title-group><issn publication-format="print">2311-2905</issn><issn publication-format="electronic">2542-0933</issn><publisher><publisher-name xml:lang="en">Vreden National Medical Research Center of Traumatology and Orthopedics</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">98</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.21823/2311-2905-2014-0-4-57-61</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="toc-heading" xml:lang="en"><subject>Theoretical and experimental studies</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="toc-heading" xml:lang="ru"><subject>Теоретические и экспериментальные исследования</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="toc-heading" xml:lang="zh"><subject>Theoretical and experimental studies</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="article-type"><subject></subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title xml:lang="en">Rotational stability of different hip revision systems</article-title><trans-title-group xml:lang="ru"><trans-title>Ротационная стабильность различных ревизионных систем</trans-title></trans-title-group></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author"><name-alternatives><name xml:lang="en"><surname>Thomsen</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name><name xml:lang="ru"><surname>Томсен</surname><given-names>М.</given-names></name></name-alternatives><address><country country="RU">Russian Federation</country></address><email>marc.thomsen@klinikum-mittelbaden.de</email><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"/></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name-alternatives><name xml:lang="en"><surname>Jakubowitz</surname><given-names>E.</given-names></name><name xml:lang="ru"><surname>Якубович</surname><given-names>Е.</given-names></name></name-alternatives><address><country country="RU">Russian Federation</country></address><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"/></contrib></contrib-group><aff-alternatives id="aff1"><aff><institution xml:lang="en">Mittelbaden Clinics Baden-Baden, Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery Units</institution></aff><aff><institution xml:lang="ru">Отделение травматологии и ортопедии Клиники Миттельбаден</institution></aff></aff-alternatives><aff-alternatives id="aff2"><aff><institution xml:lang="en">Laboratory of Biomechanics and Implant Research, University of Heidelberg, Department of Orthopaedics</institution></aff><aff><institution xml:lang="ru">Лаборатория биомеханики и имплантологических исследований, Гейдельбергский университет</institution></aff></aff-alternatives><pub-date date-type="pub" iso-8601-date="2014-12-12" publication-format="electronic"><day>12</day><month>12</month><year>2014</year></pub-date><volume>20</volume><issue>4</issue><issue-title xml:lang="en"/><issue-title xml:lang="ru"/><fpage>57</fpage><lpage>61</lpage><history><date date-type="received" iso-8601-date="2016-09-12"><day>12</day><month>09</month><year>2016</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-year>2014</copyright-year><ali:free_to_read xmlns:ali="http://www.niso.org/schemas/ali/1.0/"/></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://journal.rniito.org/jour/article/view/98">https://journal.rniito.org/jour/article/view/98</self-uri><abstract xml:lang="en"><p>The authors present an experimental investigation that compares the primary rotational fixation of 4 revision stems. Methods: Each stem was implanted into 4 synthetic femora. Micromotion of stem and bone was measured at defined sites under torque application. Femoral neck osteotomy and AAOS type I and III defects were simulated by reproducible saw lines. Results: Up to a type I defect, all implants are capable of bridging the substance loss in a rotationally stable manner. The relative movements show a dependence both on the bone defect and on implant design. Even within the basic design types clear differences (p &lt; 0.0001) are partially observable. Major differences were seen in type III defects. Whereas the conical stem designs had the ability to bridge the extensive defect the cylindric shapes showed no rotationally stability. Conclusion: As the major fixation area the femoral isthmus plays a decisive role for all tested stems. Due to enormous and partly selective load transmission of the conical stems the cylindrical designs is good for type I defects. In case of an extensive substance loss the decision should be a conical implant.</p></abstract><trans-abstract xml:lang="ru"><p>Цель - сравнить первичную ротационную стабильность четырех ревизионных бедренных компонентов. Методы. Каждую из четырех ножек имплантировали в синтетические бедренные кости, после чего измеряли момент вращения, который вызывал микроподвижность между ножкой и костью в определенных участках. С помощью пилы были смоделированы воспроизводимые остеотомии шейки бедренной кости и дефекты I и III типа по классификации AAOS. Результаты. До I типа дефекта включительно все имплантаты выдерживали потерю вещества кости и демонстрировали ротационную стабильность. Относительная нестабильность зависела как от типа костного дефекта, так и от конструкции имплантата. Даже между основными типами конструкций имелись четкие различия (р&lt;0,0001). Наибольшие различия были отмечены при III типе дефектов. В то время как конические бедренные компоненты были способны противостоять обширным дефектам, имплантаты цилиндрической формы не показывали ротационной стабильности. Заключение. Главной областью фиксации для всех протестированных ножек является истмус канала бедренной кости. Ввиду того, что конические ножки передают на кость очень значительную и неравномерную нагрузку, при дефектах I типа предпочтительнее цилиндрические конструкции. В случае обширной потери костной ткани целесообразно использовать конический бедренный компонент.</p></trans-abstract><kwd-group xml:lang="ru"><kwd>ревизионные бедренные компоненты</kwd><kwd>ротационная стабильность</kwd><kwd>hip revision systems</kwd><kwd>rotational stability</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body></body><back><ref-list><ref id="B1"><label>1.</label><mixed-citation>Chandler HP, Ayres DK, Tan RC. et al. Revision total hip replacement using the S-ROM femoral component. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1995; 319:130-140.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B2"><label>2.</label><mixed-citation>Gebauer D, Refior HJ, Haake M. Micromotions in the primary fixation of cementless femoral stem prostheses. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1989; 108:300-307.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B3"><label>3.</label><mixed-citation>Görtz W, Nägerl UV, Nägerl H, Thomsen M. Spatial micromovements of uncemented femoral components after torsional loads. J Biomech Eng. 2002; 124:706-713.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B4"><label>4.</label><mixed-citation>Jakubowitz E, Seeger JB, Lee C, Heisel C, Kretzer J, Thomsen M. Primary rotational stability of cylindrical and conical revision hip stems as a function of femoral bone defects: An in vitro comparison. J Biomech. 2008; 41(14):3078-3084.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B5"><label>5.</label><mixed-citation>Jakubowitz E, Kinkel S, Nadorf J, Heisel C, Kretzer JP, Thomsen M. The effect of multifilaments and monofilaments on cementless femoral revision hip components: an experimental study. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2011 ;26(3):257-261.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B6"><label>6.</label><mixed-citation>Mumme T, Muller-Rath R, Weisskopf M. et al. The cement- free modular revision prosthesis MRP-hip revision stem prosthesis in clinical follow-up. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb. 2004; 142:314-321.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B7"><label>7.</label><mixed-citation>Ohl MD, Whiteside LA, McCarthy DS, White SE. Torsional fixation of a modular femoral hip component. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1993; 287:135-141.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B8"><label>8.</label><mixed-citation>Schuh A, Werber S, Holzwarth U, Zeiler G. Cementless modular hip revision arthroplasty using the MRP Titan revision stem: Outcome of 79 hips after an average of 4 years’ follow-up. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2004; 124:306-309.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B9"><label>9.</label><mixed-citation>Sugiyama H, Whiteside LA, Engh CA. Torsional fixation of the femoral component in total hip arthroplasty. The effect of surgical press-fit technique. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1992; 275:187-193.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B10"><label>10.</label><mixed-citation>Thomsen M, Aldinger P, Gortz W. et al. The importance to generate robot-assisted milled cavities for total hip replacement. A comparative experimental study: manual versus robotic preparation. Unfallchirurg. 2001; 104: 692-699.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B11"><label>11.</label><mixed-citation>Thomsen M, Gortz W, Nagerl H. Charakterisierung moderner Huftendoprothesen. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb. 1999; 137:A32.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B12"><label>12.</label><mixed-citation>Thomsen M, Kretzer JP, Heisel C , Lee C, Nadorf J, Jakubowitz E. Femorale Revisionsprothesen - Eine Analyse der Verankerung. Orthopäde. 2010; 39:623-630.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B13"><label>13.</label><mixed-citation>Thomsen M, Lee C. In-vitro rotational stability of cemented stem designs. In: Breusch SJ, Malchau H. (eds). The wellcemented total hip arthroplasty. Theory and practice. 1st ed. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer; 2005. p. 196-205.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B14"><label>14.</label><mixed-citation>Thomsen MN, Breusch SJ, Aldinger PR. et al. Roboticallymilled bone cavities: a comparison with hand-broaching in different types of cementless hip stems. Acta Orthop Scand. 2002; 73:379-385.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B15"><label>15.</label><mixed-citation>Wagner H, Wagner M. Konische Schaftverankerung zementfreier Huftprothesen - Primarimplantation und Prothesenwechsel. In: Morscher EW. (ed). Endoprothetik. 1st ed. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer; 1995. p. 278-288.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B16"><label>16.</label><mixed-citation>Wagner H. Femur revision prosthesis. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb. 1993; 131:574-577.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B17"><label>17.</label><mixed-citation>Warren PJ, Thompson M, Fletcher MD. Transfemoral implantation of the Wagner SL stem. The abolition of subsidence and enhancement of osteotomy union rate using Dall-Miles cables. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2002; 122:557-560.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B18"><label>18.</label><mixed-citation>Wirtz DC, Heller KD, Holzwarth U. et al. A modular femoral implant for uncemented stem revision THR. Int Orthop. 2000; 24:134-138.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B19"><label>19.</label><mixed-citation>Wirtz DC. Modulare Schaftimplantate: Klinische Ergebnisse der MRP-Titanprothese. In: Thumler P, Forst R, Zeiler G. (eds). Modulare Revisionsendoprothetik des Huftgelenks. 1st ed. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer; 2005. p. 271-281.</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>
