[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
May 1958

Reconstruction Versus Prosthesis: Observations 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