Table 2: Primary and revision implant type and surgical details.
Study (year) |
Primary Femoral Implant (N) |
Revision Surgical Approach |
Osteotomy length (range, cm) |
Femoral Bone Defects (Paprosky) |
Time to 2nd stage (weeks) |
% ETO Reopened in Stage 2 |
Revision Femoral Implant (N) |
ETO Fixation Second Stage |
Fink and Oremek [24] |
Cemented (30) Uncemented (46) |
Posterior |
18.9 (13-30.9) |
Type 1: 7 |
-- |
100% |
Modular, cementless |
Cerclage wires |
Levin, et al. [15] |
Cemented (12) Cementless (11) |
Posterior |
12.5 (8-17) |
Type 2: 12 |
14.3 |
52%
|
Fully porous (18) |
Cerclage wires |
Lim, et al. [12] |
Cemented (6) Cementless (17) |
Posterior |
14.0 (11-22) |
-- |
18 |
0% |
Cementless |
Cerclage wires |
Morshed, et al. [26] |
Cemented (8) Cementless (5) |
Posterior |
-- |
-- |
8.9 |
* |
Distally porous, cementless |
Figure-of-8 cable with supplemental diaphyseal cables |
Petrie, et al. [13] |
-- |
Posterior |
-- |
Type 1: 56 Unknown: 4 |
18.9 |
-- |
Standard cemented (70) Long-stem cementless (17) |
Cerclage wires |
Shi, et al. [28] |
Cemented (33) Cementless (15) |
Posterior |
13.0 (10-16) |
-- |
46.4 |
17% |
Porous-coated, cementless, diaphyseal engaging nonmodular |
Cerclage wires |
Total |
Cemented (89, 49%) Cementless (94, 51%) |
Posterior |
15.7** |
Type 1: 63 |
24.0** |
96 (56%) |
Cemented (87, 31%) |
Cerclage wires (272, 95%) |
*ETO was secured with fascial repair only between stage 1 and stage 2 revision; **Weighted average