[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
May 1958

Reconstruction Versus ProsthesisObservations in a Series of Fifty Cases

Author Affiliations

Professor and Chairman of Department of Bone and Joint Surgery, Stritch School of Medicine of Loyola University; Professor of Bone and Joint Surgery, Cook County Graduate School of Medicine; Chairman, Department of Fractures, Cook County Hospital; Senior Attending Surgeon, St. Anne's Hospital; Consulting Surgeon, Loretto and Holy Cross Hospitals.

AMA Arch Surg. 1958;76(5):737-743. doi:10.1001/archsurg.1958.01280230077011

Indications for Reconstruction  A series of 50 cases demonstrated that reconstruction is beneficial in the following conditions: (1) in nonunion of the neck of the femur; (2) when there is excessive absorption of the proximal and distal portions of the neck, so that only the head and the base of the neck and the intertrochanteric area remain; (3) in aseptic necrosis of the head as a consequence of dislocation of the hip, of fracture of the acetabulum, or of other injuries that interfere with the circulation of the head and neck; (4) in advanced osteoarthritic changes in the head of the femur; (5) when there are malformations of the head as a result of a shallow acetabulum or a long-standing pathologic condition of the hips, such as Perthes' disease or a slipped femoral epiphysis, and (6) in subcapital fractures in the aged. Subcapital fractures are so serious that some elaboration

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview