Display options
Share it on

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

  1. 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

  1. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1986 May;68(3):431-8 - PubMed
  2. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2002 Nov-Dec;10(6):409-16 - PubMed
  3. Bone. 2004 Jun;34(6):1078-83 - PubMed
  4. Mayo Clin Proc. 2008 Sep;83(9):1032-45 - PubMed
  5. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990 Jun;(255 ):160-7 - PubMed
  6. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1981 May;(156):141-4 - PubMed
  7. Med Chir Trans. 1877;60:37-64.9 - PubMed
  8. J Arthroplasty. 2014 May;29(5):1063-6 - PubMed
  9. J Bone Miner Res. 2006 Dec;21 Suppl 2:P75-82 - PubMed
  10. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003 Apr;85-A(4):697-702 - PubMed
  11. Int Orthop. 2010 Dec;34(8):1103-9 - PubMed
  12. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2010 Apr;96(2):97-103 - PubMed
  13. Arthritis Rheum. 1980 Oct;23(10):1104-14 - PubMed
  14. Acta Orthop Scand. 2001 Apr;72 (2):127-32 - PubMed
  15. J Arthroplasty. 2007 Aug;22(5):692-6 - PubMed
  16. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999 Dec;(369):243-50 - PubMed
  17. Metab Bone Dis Relat Res. 1981;3(4-5):235-8 - PubMed
  18. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007 Apr;89(4):434-40 - PubMed
  19. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1987 Jun;69(5):766-72 - PubMed
  20. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002 Oct;(403):127-34 - PubMed
  21. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1984 Jun;66(5):752-8 - PubMed
  22. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011 Oct 06;12:222 - PubMed
  23. J Arthroplasty. 2000 Feb;15(2):210-9 - PubMed
  24. N Engl J Med. 1997 Feb 20;336(8):558-66 - PubMed

Publication Types