World J Orthop. 2017 Apr 18;8(4):357-363. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v8.i4.357. eCollection 2017 Apr 18.
Total hip arthroplasty in patients with Paget's disease of bone: A systematic review.
World journal of orthopedics
Sammy A Hanna, Sebastian Dawson-Bowling, Steven Millington, Rej Bhumbra, Pramod Achan
Affiliations
Affiliations
- Sammy A Hanna, Sebastian Dawson-Bowling, Steven Millington, Rej Bhumbra, Pramod Achan, Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, Royal London Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London E1 1BB, United Kingdom.
PMID: 28473965
PMCID: PMC5396022 DOI: 10.5312/wjo.v8.i4.357
Abstract
AIM: To investigate the clinical and functional outcomes following total hip arthroplasty (THA) in patients with Paget's disease.
METHODS: We carried out a systematic review of the literature to determine the functional outcome, complications and revision rates of THA in patients with Paget's disease. Eight studies involving 358 hips were reviewed. The mean age was 70.4 years and follow-up was 8.3 years. There were 247 cemented THAs (69%), 105 uncemented THAs (29%) and 6 hybrid THAs (2%).
RESULTS: All studies reported significant improvement in hip function following THA. There were 19 cases of aseptic loosening (5%) at a mean of 8.6 years. Three cases occurred in the uncemented cohort (3%) at a mean of 15.3 years and 16 cases developed in the cemented group (6%) at a mean of 7.5 years (
CONCLUSION: The findings support the use of THA in patients with Paget's disease hip arthropathy. The post-operative functional outcome is largely similar to other patients; however, the revision rate is higher with aseptic loosening being the most common reason for revision. Uncemented implants appear to be associated with a lower failure rate, however, there were no modern stem designs fixed using current generation cementing techniques used in the reported studies, and as such, caution is advised when drawing any conclusions.
Keywords: Heterotopic ossification; Loosening; Paget’s disease; Revision; Total hip arthroplasty
Conflict of interest statement
Conflict-of-interest statement: All the authors declare that they have no competing interests.
References
- J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1986 May;68(3):431-8 - PubMed
- J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2002 Nov-Dec;10(6):409-16 - PubMed
- Bone. 2004 Jun;34(6):1078-83 - PubMed
- Mayo Clin Proc. 2008 Sep;83(9):1032-45 - PubMed
- Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990 Jun;(255 ):160-7 - PubMed
- Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1981 May;(156):141-4 - PubMed
- Med Chir Trans. 1877;60:37-64.9 - PubMed
- J Arthroplasty. 2014 May;29(5):1063-6 - PubMed
- J Bone Miner Res. 2006 Dec;21 Suppl 2:P75-82 - PubMed
- J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003 Apr;85-A(4):697-702 - PubMed
- Int Orthop. 2010 Dec;34(8):1103-9 - PubMed
- Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2010 Apr;96(2):97-103 - PubMed
- Arthritis Rheum. 1980 Oct;23(10):1104-14 - PubMed
- Acta Orthop Scand. 2001 Apr;72 (2):127-32 - PubMed
- J Arthroplasty. 2007 Aug;22(5):692-6 - PubMed
- Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999 Dec;(369):243-50 - PubMed
- Metab Bone Dis Relat Res. 1981;3(4-5):235-8 - PubMed
- J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007 Apr;89(4):434-40 - PubMed
- J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1987 Jun;69(5):766-72 - PubMed
- Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002 Oct;(403):127-34 - PubMed
- J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1984 Jun;66(5):752-8 - PubMed
- BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011 Oct 06;12:222 - PubMed
- J Arthroplasty. 2000 Feb;15(2):210-9 - PubMed
- N Engl J Med. 1997 Feb 20;336(8):558-66 - PubMed
Publication Types