Abstract
Introduction
While fixation on the acetabular side in resurfacing implants has been uncemented, the femoral component is usually cemented. The most common causes for early revision in hip resurfacing are femoral head and or neck fractures and aseptic loosening of the femoral component. Later failures appear to be more related to adverse soft-tissue reactions due to metal wear. Little is known about the effect of cementing techniques on the clinical outcome in hip resurfacing, since retrieval analysis of failed hip resurfacing show large variations. Two cementing techniques have dominated. The indirect low viscosity (LV) technique as for the Birmingham Hip resurfacing (BHR) system and the direct high viscosity (HV) technique as for the Articular Surface replacement (ASR) system. The ASR was withdrawn from the market in 2010 due to inferior short and midterm clinical outcome. This study presents an in vitro experiment on the cement mantle parameters and penetration into ASR resurfaced femoral heads comparing both techniques.
Methods
Five sets of paried frozen cadavar femura (3 male, 2 female) were used in the study. The study was approved by ethics committee. Plastic ASR replicas (DePuy, Leeds, UK), femoral head size 47Ø were used. The LV technique was used for the right femora (Group A, fig. 1 and 3) while the HV technigue was used for the left femora (Group B. Fig 2 and 4). The speciments were cut into quadrants. An initiial visual, qualitative evaluation was followed by CT analysis of cement mantle thickness and cement penetration into bone.
Results
No significant differences were seen between the four quadrants within each group. The LV technigue resulted in greater cement penetration and increased cement mantle under the top proximally. The HV technique showed less penetration and lower cement mantle. See figures 1–4.
Discussion
The aim was to analyze the effect of the cementing techniques used in hip resurfacing practice. The ASR implant was chosen to improve understanding of whether the implant may have been sensitive to cementing techniques and whether an analysis of cementing with the recommended HV technique may assist in explaning the high incidence of short-term ASR revisions due to fractures. Findings for the HV technigue would indicate a superior technique according to consensus in conventional arthropalsty However, this contradicts clinical evidence on resurfacing, where LV cementation has been shown tho be superior. The superficial intergration in the HV technigue may result in only a superficial integration and subsequently suboptimal fixation to bone.
To view tables/figures, please contact authors directly.
