FIXATION OF REVISION IMPLANTS IS IMPROVED BY THE SURGICAL TECHNIQUE OF CRACKING THE SCLEROTIC BONE RIM COMPARED TO REAMING

Abstract

Introduction: Revision hip implants have poorer clinical outcome than primary implants. The fixation of the implants is often compromised by the formation of an endosteal sclerotic bone rim during the process of aseptic loosening. The cracking procedure is a bone sparing, low energy surgical technique which produces a controlled local perforation of the sclerotic bone rim. In previous studies, we showed that fixation of revision implants significantly improved by the cracking technique for both titanium (Ti) and hydroxyapatite (HA) coated implants (1). In this study we compared the cracking technique with the common technique of reaming, which completely removes the sclerotic bone rim.

Methods: A paired animal study (n=10), in which revision cavities was created by 20 micromotion implant systems inserted in both knees. Micromotion was 0.5mm per gait cycle. After 8 weeks revision surgery was performed.

Crack revision: The splined crack tool was introduced over the implant piston with firm axial hammer blows. This producing controlled cracking and local perforation of the sclerotic endosteal rim. The tool is a 6.0 mm cylinder fitted with axially spaced 1.1 mm pointed splines (8.2 mm outer diameter).

Reaming revision: A flat bottomed reamer was inserted over the implant piston using one rotation per second. The outer diameter was 8.2 mm in order to remove the sclerotic bone rim. Stable revision Ti implants was inserted. Observation period was 4 weeks. Mechanical push-out tests were performed. Students’ paired t-test was used. Data presented as mean and SEM.

Results: Shear strength was markedly higher with the cracking procedure 1.33± 0.3MPa vs. 0.34 ± 0.2 MPa (p< 0.05). Similar results was seen for Stiffness 6.7± 2.0 vs. 1.6 ± 0.9 (p< 0.05) in favor of the cracking procedure. A non-significant increase was seen in energy absorption 170± 47 vs. 50± 29 (p=0.07).

Discussion: The cracking procedure improves the mechanical fixation of Ti revision implants compared to a reaming procedure. Shear strength and stiffness was consistently higher for all implant pairs. We have previously shown that the sclerotic bone rim is a barrier for bone ingrowth and that implants inserted with an intact sclerotic bone rim will have a poor biomechanical fixation. Additionally, revision implants inserted with the cracking technique obtained a mechanical fixation comparable to primary implants. Reaming procedures are often used in hip revision surgery. However, as loss of bone stock is a common feature of revision cavities, the reaming procedure may not always be an optimal preparation method of the bone. Excessive removal of bone by reaming may compromise the long term implant stability or increase the risk of peri-implant fractures. The cracking technique may be an alternative or supplemental procedure to reaming.