Abstract
The technique involves impaction of cancellous bone into a cavitary femur. If segmental defects are present, the defects can be closed with stainless steel mesh. The technique requires retrograde fill of the femoral cavity with cancellous chips of appropriate size to create a new endomedullary canal. By using a set of trial impactors that are slightly larger than the real implants the cancellous bone is impacted into the tube. Subsequent proximal impaction of bone is performed with square tip or half moon impactors. A key part of the technique is to impact the bone tightly into the tube especially around the calcar to provide optimal stability. Finally a polished tapered stem is cemented using almost liquid cement in order to achieve interdigitation of the implant to the cancellous bone.
The technique as described is rarely performed today in many centers around the world. In the US, the technique lost its interest because of the lengthy operative times, unacceptable rate of peri-operative and post-operative fractures and most importantly, owing to the success of tapered fluted modular stems. In centers such as Exeter where the technique was popularised, it is rarely performed today as well, as the primary cemented stems used there, rarely require revision.
There is ample experience from around the globe, however, with the technique. Much has been learned about the best size and choice of cancellous graft, force of impaction, surface finish of the cemented stem, importance of stem length, and the limitations and complications of the technique. There are also good histology data that demonstrate successful vascularization and incorporation of the impacted cancellous bone chips and host bone.
Our experience at the clinic was excellent with the technique as reported in CORR in 2003 by M Cabanela. The results at mid-term demonstrated minimal subsidence and good graft incorporation. Six of 54 hips, however, had a post-operative distal femoral fracture requiring ORIF. The use of longer cemented stems may decrease the risk of distal fracture and was subsequently reported by the author after reviewing a case series from Exeter.
Today, I perform this technique once or twice per year. It is an option in the younger patient, where bone restoration is desired. Usually in a Paprosky Type IV femur, where a closed tube can be recreated and the proximal bone is reasonable. If the proximal bone is of poor quality, then I prefer to perform a transfemoral osteotomy, and perform an allograft prosthetic composite instead of impaction grafting, and wrap the proximal bone around the structural allograft. I prefer this technique as I can maintain the soft tissues over the bone and avoid the stripping that would be required to reinforce the bone with struts or mesh. Another indication for its use in the primary setting is in the patient with fibrous dysplasia.
