Introduction

Cement in cement revision with preservation of the original cement mantle has become an attractive and commonly practised technique in revision hip surgery. Since introducing this technique to our unit we have used two types of polished tapered stem. We report the clinical and radiological outcomes for cement in cement femoral revisions performed using these prostheses.

The number of cemented femoral stems implanted in the United States continues to slowly decrease over time. Approximately 10% of all femoral components implanted today are cemented, and the majority are in patients undergoing hip arthroplasty for femoral neck fractures. The European experience is quite different. In the UK, cemented femoral stems account for approximately 50% of all implants, while in the Swedish registry, cemented stems still account for the majority of implanted femoral components. Recent data demonstrating some limitations of uncemented fixation in the elderly for primary THA, may suggest that a cemented femoral component may be an attractive alternative in such a group. Two general philosophies exist with regards to the cemented femoral stem: Taper slip and Composite Beam. There are flagship implants representing both philosophies and select designs have shown excellent results past 30 years. A good femoral component design and cementing technique, however, is crucial for long-term clinical success. The author's personal preference is that of a “taper slip” design. The cemented Exeter stem has shown excellent results past 30 years with rare cases of loosening. The characteristic behavior of such a stem is to allow slight subsidence of the stem within the cement mantle through the process of cement creep. One or two millimeters of subsidence in the long-term have been observed with no detrimental clinical consequences. There have been ample results in the literature showing the excellent results at mid- and long-term in all patient groups. The author's current indication for a cemented stem include the elderly with no clear and definitive cutoff for age, most likely in females, THA for femoral neck fracture, small femoral canals such as those patients with DDH, and occasionally in patients with history of previous hip infection. Modern and impeccable cement technique is paramount for durable cemented fixation. It is important to remember that the goal is interdigitation of the cement with cancellous bone, so preparing the femur should not remove cancellous bone. Modern technique includes distal plugging of the femoral canal, pulsatile lavage, drying of the femoral canal with epinephrine or hydrogen peroxide, retrograde fill of the femoral canal with cement with appropriate suction and pressurization of the femoral cement into the canal prior to implantation of the femoral component. The dreaded “cement implantation syndrome” leading to sudden death can be avoided by appropriate fluid resuscitation prior to implanting the femoral component. This is an extremely rare occurrence today with reported mortality for the Exeter stem of 1 in 10,000. A cemented femoral component has been shown to be clinically successful at long term. Unfortunately, the art of cementing a femoral component has been lost and is rarely performed in the US. The number of cemented stems, unfortunately, may continue to go down as it is uncommonly taught in residency and fellowship, however, it might find a resurgence as the limits of uncemented fixation in the elderly are encountered. National joint registers support the use of cemented femoral components, and actually demonstrate higher survivorship at short term when compared to all other uncemented femoral components. A cemented femoral component should be in the hip surgeons armamentarium when treating patients undergoing primary and revision THA

The number of cemented femoral stems implanted in the United States continues to slowly decrease over time. Approximately 10% of all femoral components implanted today are cemented, and the majority are in patients undergoing hip arthroplasty for femoral neck fractures. The European experience is quite different, in the UK, cemented femoral stems account for approximately 50% of all implants, while in the Swedish registry, cemented stems still account for the majority of implanted femoral components. Recent data demonstrating some limitations of uncemented fixation in the elderly for primary THA, may suggest that a cemented femoral component may be an attractive alternative in such a group. Two general philosophies exist with regards to the cemented femoral stem: Taper slip and Composite Beam. There are flagship implants representing both philosophies and select designs have shown excellent results past 30 years. A good femoral component design and cementing technique, however, is crucial for long-term clinical success. The authors' personal preference is that of a “taper slip” design. The cemented Exeter stem has shown excellent results past 30 years with rare cases of loosening. The characteristic behavior of such a stem is to allow slight subsidence of the stem within the cement mantle through the process of cement creep. One or two millimeters of subsidence in the long-term have been observed with no detrimental clinical consequences. There have been ample results in the literature showing the excellent results at mid- and long-term in all patient groups. The authors' current indications for a cemented stem include the elderly with no clear and definitive cutoff for age, most likely in females, THA for femoral neck fracture, small femoral canals such as those patients with DDH, and occasionally in patients with history of previous hip infection. Modern and impeccable cement technique is paramount for durable cemented fixation. It is important to remember that the goal is interdigitation of the cement with cancellous bone, so preparing the femur should not remove cancellous bone. Modern technique includes distal plugging of the femoral canal, pulsatile lavage, drying of the femoral canal with epinephrine or hydrogen peroxide, retrograde fill of the femoral canal with cement with appropriate suction and pressurization of the femoral cement into the canal prior to implantation of the femoral component. The dreaded “cement implantation syndrome” leading to sudden death can be avoided by appropriate fluid resuscitation prior to implanting the femoral component. This is a extremely rare occurrence today with reported mortality for the Exeter stem of 1 in 10,000. A cemented femoral component has been shown to be clinically successful at long term. Unfortunately, the art of cementing a femoral component has been lost and is rarely performed in the US. The number of cemented stems unfortunately may continue to go down as it is uncommonly taught in residency and fellowship, however it might find a resurgence as the limits of uncemented fixation in the elderly are encountered. National joint registers support the use of cemented femoral components, and actually demonstrate higher survivorship at short term when compared to all other uncemented femoral components. A cemented femoral component should be in the hip surgeons' armamentarium when treating patients undergoing primary and revision THA

As the number of patients who have undergone total hip arthroplasty rises, the number of patients who require surgery for a failed total hip arthroplasty is also increasing. Reconstruction of the failed femoral component in revision total hip arthroplasty can be challenging from both a technical perspective and in preoperative planning. With multiple reconstructive options available, it is helpful to have a classification system which guides the surgeon in selecting the appropriate method of reconstruction. We have developed a classification of femoral deficiency and an algorithmic approach to femoral reconstruction is presented. Type I: Minimal loss of metaphyseal cancellous bone with an intact diaphysis. Often seen when conversion of a cementless femoral component without biological ingrowth surface requires revision. Type II: Extensive loss of metaphyseal cancellous bone with an intact diaphysis. Often encountered after the removal of a cemented femoral component. Type IIIA: The metaphysis is severely damaged and non-supportive with more than four centimeters of intact diaphyseal bone for distal fixation. This type of defect is commonly seen after removal of grossly loose femoral components inserted with first generation cementing techniques. Type IIIB: The metaphysis is severely damaged and non-supportive with less than four centimeters of diaphyseal bone available for distal fixation. This type of defect is often seen following failure of a cemented femoral component that was inserted with a cement restrictor and cementless femoral components associated with significant distal osteolysis. Type IV: Extensive meta-diaphyseal damage in conjunction with a widened femoral canal. The isthmus is non-supportive

PFFs are an increasing burden presenting to the acute trauma services. The purpose of this study is to show that cemented revision for Vancouver B2/B3 PFFs is a safe option in the geriatric population, allows early pain-free weight bearing and comparable to a control-group of uncemented stems with regard to return to theatre and revision surgery. A retrospective review was conducted of all PFFs treated in a Level 1 trauma centre from 2015-2020. Follow up x-rays and clinical course through electronic chart was reviewed for 78 cemented revisions and 49 uncemented revisions for PFF. Primary endpoints were all cause revision and return to theatre for any reason. Secondary endpoints recorded mobility status and all-cause mortality. In the cemented group there were 73 Vancouver B2, 5 Vancouver B3 PFF; the mean age was 79.7 years and mean radiological follow-up of 11.9 months. In the cementless group there were 32 Vancouver B2 and 17 Vancouver B3 PFFs; with all 49 patients undergoing distally bearing uncemented revision, the mean age was 72.7 years and mean radiological follow-up of 21.3 months. Patients treated with a cemented prosthesis had significantly higher ASA score (2.94 -v- 2.43, p<0.001). The primary endpoints showed that there was no significant difference in all cause revision 3/78 and 5/49 p=0.077, or return to theatre 13/78 -v- 12/49 p=0.142. Secondary endpoints revealed no significant difference in in-hospital mortality. The cementless group were more likely to be mobilising without any aid at latest follow-up 35/49 -v- 24/78 p<0.001. The use of cemented revision femoral component in the setting of PFFs is one option in the algorithm for management of unstable PFFs according to the Vancouver classification. Evidence from this case-control study, shows that the all-cause revision and return to theatre for any cause was comparable in both groups

Introduction. Cemented femoral fixation has been shown to carry a lower risk of peri-prosthetic fracture (PPF). The aim of this study was to determine whether adequate (1) stem position and (2) cement mantle (i.e. factors associated with outcome of cemented stems) can be achieved with the anterior approach as compared to the posterior approach. Methods. This is a prospective, multi-surgeon, single center, consecutive, case-matched series. Twenty patients/hips (age: 76±SD 14) that underwent cemented fixation of their femoral component via an anterior approach (AA) were matched with twenty hips that received the same cemented femoral components via the posterior approach by the same surgeons. Outcome measures of interest included Barrack classification (A, B, C or D), Coronal alignment defined as Varus (>5º), mild varus (3–5º), neutral, mild valgus (3–5º) and valgus (>5º) of the stem and sagittal component alignment defined as anterior to posterior, neutral, posterior to anterior (±3 degrees) and cement mantle thickness in all Gruen zones. Results. There was no difference between groups in the Barrack classification (DAA: A:12,B:7, D:1); (Posterior: A:13, B:7) [p=0.56]. Coronal alignment (DAA: 15 neutral, 5 mild varus/valgus); (Post:15 neutral, 3 mild varus/valgus, 2 valgus) [p=0.27] and sagittal alignment was similar between groups [p=0.07]. Cement mantle thickness per Gruen zone was also similar between groups in all zones with particular interest zones 8 [P=0.68] and 12 [p=0.3] confirming comparable sagittal cement mantle thickness. Conclusion. This study demonstrates that equivalent stem alignment and cement mantle quality can be achieved with both approaches. As such, patients undergoing the AA approach can benefit from a quick recovery and lower risk of peri-prosthetic femur fracture

Aims: Resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip is increasing in popularity. Recently concerns have been raised about resorbtion of the femoral neck after hip resurfacing, which may increase the risk of femoral neck fracture. We conducted a study to assess the degree of femoral neck resorbtion after using a cemented femoral component at hip resurfacing arthroplasty and to compare this with an uncemented femoral component. Patients and Methods: We included 130 patients who had undergone a hip resurfacing arthroplasty in our study. Our uncemented group included 70 consecutive patients who had received an uncemented Cormet hip resurfacing arthroplasty (Corin, Cirencester, UK). Our cemented group included 60 patients who had received a cemented Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty (Smith and Nephew, Cambridge, UK). All patients were regularly followed up for a minimum of two years. Clinical outcome was assessed using Harris hip scores. Femoral neck resorbtion was assessed by measuring the cup-neck ratio on post-operative radiographs by two independent observers. Results: The mean age of the patients was 50.7 years for the cemented resurfacing group and 51.5 years for the uncemented resurfacing group. No difference was found in Harris hip scores between the two groups at any of the follow-up periods. The overall survival rate at two years was 100% for the cemented group and 98.6% for the uncemented group. There was however, a significant increase in femoral neck resorbtion for the cemented resurfacing group compared to the uncemented resurfacing group (median cup-neck ratio 1.11 vs. 1.04), p< 0.0001. Conclusion: We found a significant increase in femoral neck resorbtion with the use of a cemented femoral component at hip resurfacing arthroplasty compared with an uncemented femoral component. This may increase the risk of femoral neck fracture and could affect the long-term outcome if a cemented femoral component is used

As the number of patients who have undergone total hip arthroplasty rises, the number of patients who require surgery for a failed total hip arthroplasty is also increasing. It is estimated that 183,000 total hip replacements were performed in the United States in the year 2000 and that 31,000 of these (17%) were revision procedures. Reconstruction of the failed femoral component in revision total hip arthroplasty can be challenging from a technical perspective and in pre-operative planning. With multiple reconstructive options available, it is helpful to have a classification system which guides the surgeon in selecting the appropriate method of reconstruction. A classification of femoral deficiency has been developed and an algorithmic approach to femoral reconstruction is presented. Type I:. Minimal loss of metaphyseal cancellous bone with an intact diaphysis. Often seen when conversion of a cementless femoral component without biological ingrowth surface requires revision. Type II: Extensive loss of metaphyseal cancellous bone with an intact diaphysis. Often encountered after the removal of a cemented femoral component. Type IIIA: The metaphysis is severely damaged and non-supportive with more than 4cm of intact diaphyseal bone for distal fixation. This type of defect is commonly seen after removal of grossly loose femoral components inserted with first generation cementing techniques. Type IIIB: The metaphysis is severely damaged and non-supportive with less than 4cm of diaphyseal bone available for distal fixation. This type of defect is often seen following failure of a cemented femoral component that was inserted with a cement restrictor and cementless femoral components associated with significant distal osteolysis. Type IV: Extensive meta-diaphyseal damage in conjunction with a widened femoral canal. The isthmus is non-supportive. An extensively coated, diaphyseal filling component reliable achieves successful fixation in the majority of revision femurs. The surgical technique is straightforward and we continue to use this type of device in the majority of our revision total hip arthroplasties. However, in the severely damaged femur (Type IIIB and Type IV), other reconstructive options may provide improved results. Type IIIB:. Based on the poor results obtained with a cylindrical, extensively porous coated implant (with 4 of 8 reconstructions failing), our preference is a modular, cementless, tapered stem with flutes for obtaining rotational stability. Excellent results have been reported with this type of implant and by virtue of its tapered design, excellent initial axial stability can be obtained even in femurs with a very short isthmus. Subsidence has been reported as a potential problem with this type of implant and they can be difficult to insert. However, with the addition of modularity to many systems that employ this concept of fixation, improved stability can be obtained by impaction of the femoral component as far distally as needed while then building up the proximal segment to restore appropriate leg length. Type IV:. The isthmus is completely non-supportive and the femoral canal is widened. Cementless fixation cannot be reliably used in our experience, as it is difficult to obtain adequate initial implant stability that is required for osseointegration. Reconstruction can be performed with impaction grafting if the cortical tube of the proximal femur is intact. However, this technique can be technically difficult to perform, time consuming and costly given the amount of bone graft that is often required. Although implant subsidence and peri-prosthetic fractures (both intra-operatively and post-operatively) have been associated with this technique, it can provide an excellent solution for the difficult revision femur where cementless fixation cannot be utilised. Alternatively, an allograft-prosthesis composite can be utilised for younger patients in an attempt to reconstitute bone stock and a proximal femoral replacing endoprosthesis used for more elderly patients

As the number of patients who have undergone total hip arthroplasty rises, the number of patients who require surgery for a failed total hip arthroplasty is also increasing. Reconstruction of the failed femoral component in revision total hip arthroplasty can be challenging from both a technical perspective and in pre-operative planning. With multiple reconstructive options available, it is helpful to have a classification system which guides the surgeon in selecting the appropriate method of reconstruction. Type I: Minimal loss of metaphyseal cancellous bone with an intact diaphysis. Often seen when conversion of a cementless femoral component without biological ingrowth surface requires revision. Type II: Extensive loss of metaphyseal cancellous bone with an intact diaphysis. Often encountered after the removal of a cemented femoral component. Type IIIA: The metaphysis is severely damaged and non-supportive with more than 4 cm of intact diaphyseal bone for distal fixation. This type of defect is commonly seen after removal of grossly loose femoral components inserted with first generation cementing techniques. Type IIIB: The metaphysis is severely damaged and non-supportive with less than 4 cm of diaphyseal bone available for distal fixation. This type of defect is often seen following failure of a cemented femoral component that was inserted with a cement restrictor and cementless femoral components associated with significant distal osteolysis. Type IV: Extensive meta-diaphyseal damage in conjunction with a widened femoral canal. The isthmus is non-supportive. Based on our results, the following reconstructive algorithm is recommended for femoral reconstruction in revision total hip arthroplasty. An extensively coated, diaphyseal filling component reliably achieves successful fixation in the majority of revision femurs and the surgical technique is straightforward. However, in the severely damaged femur (Type IIIB and Type IV), other reconstructive options may provide improved results. Type I: Cemented or cementless fixation can be utilised. If cemented fixation is selected, great care must be taken in removing the neo-cortex often encountered to allow for appropriate cement intrusion into the remaining cancellous bone. Type II: In this cohort of patients, successful fixation was achieved using a diaphyseal fitting, extensively porous coated implant. However, as the metaphysis is supportive, a cementless implant that achieves primary fixation in the metaphysis can be utilised. Type IIIA: An extensively coated stem of adequate length is utilised to ensure that more than 4 cm of scratch fit is obtained in the diaphysis. Type IIIB: Our present preference is a modular, cementless, tapered stem with flutes for obtaining rotational stability. Type IV: Cementless fixation cannot be reliably used in our experience, as it is difficult to obtain adequate initial implant stability that is required for osseointegration. Reconstruction can be performed with impaction grafting if the cortical tube of the proximal femur is intact. However, this technique can be technically difficult to perform, time consuming and costly given the amount of bone graft that is often required. Although implant subsidence and peri-prosthetic fractures (both intra-operatively and post-operatively) have been associated with this technique, it can provide an excellent solution for the difficult revision femur where cementless fixation cannot be utilised. Alternatively, an allograft-prosthesis composite can be utilised for younger patients in an attempt to reconstitute bone stock and a proximal femoral replacing endoprosthesis used for more elderly patients

Introduction. In the setting of periprosthetic joint infection, the complete removal of implants and cement can be challenging with well-fixed, cemented implants about the knee. This can get especially complex in the setting of long cemented femoral stems. Osteotomies are well described in the proximal femur and tibia for removal of implants and cement. There is little information available on distal femoral osteotomies to facilitate knee implant and retained cement removal. Methods. We describe a novel anterolateral oblique distal femoral osteotomy for the removal of well-fixed, cemented components during resection knee arthroplasty that preserves vascularity to the osteotomized segment. Cadaveric anatomic vascular injection studies were performed to document vascularity of the osteotomized segment. Clinical examples, and results will be presented. Results. Anatomic vascular studies documented preserved vascularity to the osteotomized segment. In two patients intramedullary infected implant and cement was completely removed. At reimplantation and final followup the osteotomy was radiographically healed, implants well fixed, and no recurrent infections were noted. Conclusions. This osteotomy appears to be useful when removing well fixed, cemented femoral components during periprosthetic infection. Vascularity and union was preserved and obtained in all patients. For figures, tables, or references, please contact authors directly

Introduction. Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) has been proposed as an implant material for femoral total knee arthroplasty (TKA) components. Potential clinical advantages of PEEK over standard cobalt chrome alloys include modulus of elasticity and subsequently reduced stress shielding potentially eliminating osteolysis, thermal conduction properties allowing for a more natural soft tissue environment, and reduced weight enabling quicker quadriceps recovery. Manufacturing advantages include reduced manufacturing and sterilization time, lower cost, and improved quality control. Currently, no PEEK TKA implants exist on the market. Therefore, evaluation of mechanical properties in a pre-clinical phase is required to minimize patient risk. The objectives of this study include evaluation of implant fixation and determination of the potential for reduced stress shielding using the PEEK femoral TKA component. Methods and Materials. Experimental and computational analysis was performed to evaluate the biomechanical response of the femoral component (Freedom Knee, Maxx Orthopedics Inc., Plymouth Meeting, PA; Figure 1). Fixation strength of CoCr and PEEK components was evaluated in pull-off tests of cemented femoral components on cellular polyurethane foam blocks (Sawbones, Vashon Island, WA). Subsequent testing investigated the cemented fixation using cadaveric distal femurs. The reconstructions were subjected to 500,000 cycles of the peak load occurring during a standardized gait cycle (ISO 14243-1). The change from CoCr to PEEK on implant fixation was studied through computational analysis of stress distributions in the cement, implant, and the cement-implant interface. Reconstructions were analyzed when subjected to standardized gait and demanding squat loads. To investigate potentially reduced stress shielding when using a PEEK component, paired cadaveric femurs were used to measure local bone strains using digital image correlation (DIC). First, standardized gait load was applied, then the left and right femurs were implanted with CoCr and PEEK components, respectively, and subjected to the same load. To verify the validity of the computational methodology, the intact and reconstructed femurs were replicated in FEA models, based on CT scans. Results. The cyclic load phase of the pull-off experiments revealed minimal migration for both CoCr and PEEK components, although after construct sectioning, debonding at the implant-cement interface was observed for the PEEK implants. During pull-off from Sawbones the ultimate failure load of the PEEK and CoCr components averaged 2552N and 3814N respectively. FEA simulations indicated that under more physiological loading, such as walking or squatting, the PEEK component had no increased risk of loss of fixation when compared to the CoCr component. Finally, the DIC experiments and FEA simulations confirmed closer resemblance of pre-operative strain distribution using the PEEK component. Discussion. The biomechanical consequences of changing implant material from CoCr to PEEK on implant fixation was studied using experimental and computational testing of cemented reconstructions. The results indicate that, although changes occur in implant fixation, the PEEK component had a fixation strength comparable to CoCr. The advantage of long term bone preservation, as the more compliant PEEK implant is able to better replicate the physiological loads occurring in the intact femur, may reduce stress shielding around the distal femur, a common clinical cause of TKA failure. For any figures or tables, please contact the authors directly

INTRODUCTION. The Woodpecker pneumatic broaching system facilitates femoral preparation to achieve optimal primary fixation of the stem in direct anterior hip replacement using a standard operating table. The high-frequency axial impulses of the device reduce excess bone tension, intraoperative femoral fractures and overall operating time. The Woodpecker device provides uniformity and enhanced control while broaching, optimizing cortical contact between the femur and implant and thereby maximizing prosthetic axial stability and longevity. This study aims to describe a single surgeon's experience using the Woodpecker pneumatic broaching system in 649 cases of direct anterior approach (DAA) total hip arthroplasties to determine the device's safety and efficacy. METHODOLOGY. All consecutive patients undergoing elective anterior bikini total hip arthroplasties (THA) performed by a single surgeon between July 2013 and June 2018 were included. Patients undergoing a THA with the use of the Woodpecker device through a different surgical approach, revision THA or arthroplasties for a fractured neck of femur were excluded (n=219). The pneumatic device was used for broaching the femoral canal in all cases. Pre-operative and post-operative Harris Hip Scores (HHS) and post-operative radiographs were analyzed to identify femoral fractures and femoral component positioning at 6 weeks, 6 months and 12 months post-operative. Any intra-operative or post-operative surgical complications and component survivorship until most recent follow up were recorded in the clinical notes. RESULTS. A total of 649 patients (L THA=317, R THA=328 and bilateral=2) with a mean age of 69 (range 46–91yrs) and mean BMI of 28.3 (range = 18.4–44.0) underwent a DAA THA using a Woodpecker device were included in the study. Of these patients, 521 (80%) underwent uncemented and 128 (20%) underwent cemented femoral components. The time taken to broach the femur using Woodpecker broaching this system averaged 2.8 minutes (1.4 to 7.5 minutes) in both cemented and uncemented cases. In 91% of cases the templated broach size was achieved with the remaining 9% within +/− 1 size of the planned template. Radiographic analysis revealed 67.3% of the stems placed in 0–1.82 degrees of varus and 32.7% placed in 0–1.4 degrees of valgus. Average HHS were 24.4 pre-operatively, with drastic improvements shown at 6 weeks (80.95), 6 months (91.91) and 12 months (94.18) after surgery. Intraoperative femoral fractures occurred in three patients (0.4%) during trial reduction, a further three patients had periprosthetic post-operative fractures (0.4%) from falls, two patients had stem subsidence (0.3%) and a further two patients had wound infections (0.3%). At the most recent follow up, the survivorship of the acetabular component was 99.7% and the femoral component was 99.1%, with mean follow up of 2.9 years (0.5 to 5 years). No intraoperative or post-operative complications could be directly attributed to the Woodpecker broaching system. CONCLUSION. The pneumatic Woodpecker device is a safe and effective alternative tool in minimally invasive direct anterior hip replacement surgery for femoral broaching performed on a standard operating table. The skill and experience of the surgeon must be taken into consideration when utilizing new surgical devices

Introduction. Painful post-collapse femoral head osteonecrosis (AVN) continues to be a therapeutic challenge. Joint preserving surgery does not produce satisfactory results after femoral head collapse, making an arthroplasty almost inevitable. Does metal-metal resurfacing offer a conservative option that matches the consistent results of a stemmed THA in these patients?. Methods. 104 consecutive resurfacings (94 patients) performed for Ficat stage III/IV AVN were reviewed clinically, radiologically and with Oxford hip scores. Mean age at operation was 43.9 years. Aetiology included trauma (20%), steroids/chemotherapy (25%), alcohol abuse (8%), AVN secondary to Perthes’/SUFE (4%) and idiopathic (43%). Two types of devices were used a) McMinn Resurfacing Arthroplasty, HA-coated smooth uncemented cup and cemented femoral component and b) Birmingham Hip Resurfacing, porous HA cup and cemented femoral component. Results. At 2 to 11.5 years (mean 7.7 years), there were seven (6.7%) failures: four from further femoral head collapse, two infections and one osteolysis, aseptic loosening. The cumulative survival at 11years is 90% (figure 1). Mean Oxford score at follow-up is 15.4. 55% participate in moderate to heavy work or participate in regular sporting activity. Discussion. The results of any treatment modality in AVN are not as good as those in osteoarthritis. One reason is that the etiopathological factors that caused non-traumatic AVN (steroids etc) have the potential to cause continued femoral head damage. Post-traumatic patients need complex reconstructions and risk a higher failure rate. Those on immunosuppressants are prone to infections. The results of hip resurfacing in AVN in this series are no different from THRs in many published series. Metal-metal resurfacing is a good conservative option for post-collapse femoral head AVN and gives acceptable results if strict patient selection criteria are followed

Introduction: Hip resurfacing is a bone conserving option that offers a better revision prospect for young and active patients. Encouraging results from several centres prove that they function well in the early years. Their long-term survival will be known from continued monitoring of early resurfacings. Methods: This is a retrospective study of two cohorts of young (< 55 years) patients of osteoarthritis treated with hybrid-fixed metal-metal resurfacings. The cohorts are a) consecutive patients treated by the senior author in 1994 and 95 with a hydroxyapatite-coated smooth uncemented cup and a cemented femoral component and b) consecutive patients treated with hydroxyapatite-coated porous uncemented cup and a cemented femoral component since 1997 with a minimum follow-up of 5 years. 420 resurfacings (360 patients, 287 males and 73 females) were reviewed with Oxford hip scores and activity level monitoring (UCLA scale). Mean age at operation was 48.3 years. Results: Ten patients (11 hips) died from unrelated causes. Out of the remaining 409 hips (350 patients) at a follow-up of 5 to 11.5 years (mean 7.1 years), there was one failure (cumulative failure rate 0.25% at 11 years) from avascular necrosis of the femoral head. The mean Oxford score of the 350 patients is 13.4. 87% had a UCLA score of 7 and above. 55% participated in impact sports or were involved in heavy occupational work. Discussion: In the present study, with no loss to follow-up, excellent hip survival (99.75%) and activity level were seen. Young patients regard return to activities as one of their highest priorities. None of these patients were advised to change their activities at work or leisure. The extremely low failure rate in the medium term proves the suitability of resurfacing in young active patients. However, caution needs to be exercised until long term results are available

Aim: A prospective study was undertaken to define the pattern of bone remodelling using DXA following implantation of our polished, tri-tapered, collarless, cannulated cemented femoral component. Method: Our stem was implanted in 20 primary THRs. Our subjects comprised 7 male and 13 female patients. At the time of surgery the mean age was 73 (range 65 to 131). The mean weight at surgery was 75.4kg (range 47kg to 131.8kg) with a mean BMI of 28(range 22 to 40). All patients had a pre operative diagnosis of osteoarthritis. All the hips were implanted via the anterolateral approach. Pre-operative and sequential post-operative DXA evaluations were undertaken at 3 weeks, 6 and 12 months. Results: The mean precision error was 0.78%(range 0.8–3.4% depending on region of interest). Statistical analysis revealed a significant increase in BMD measured in zones 1,2,4,5,6 (p< 0.05). In zones 3 and 7, the increase in BMD was not significant (p> 0.05). The real percentage increase in BMD at 12 months was 43% in zone 1, 20% in zone 2, 8% in zone 3, 31% in zone 4, 12% in zone 5, 24% in zone 6 and 7% in zone 7. Conclusion: Peri-prosthetic bone remodelling has been observed within one year following total hip replacement (THR), which has been demonstrated by an increase in BMD in all zones. The implantation of our tri-tapered cannulated cemented femoral component, thus provides favourable proximal femoral loading at 12 months. Additional studies will determine whether stabilization of this bone turnover continues in the long term

Goals of femoral revision arthroplasty are to achieve stability of the femoral component, to restore biomechanical function of the hip joint and to restore the femoral bone stock. In order to accomplish such an ideal revision arthroplasty, several points should be reminded before and during the revision arthroplasty such as exposure, removal of the failed component, restoration of bone loss, placement of the new component and hip stability. Appropriate options of femoral components for revision depend on the degree of femoral bone loss. When the bone loss is minimum, a standard length component can be used like in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). When it is moderate or severe, special components and techniques would be necessary. Loss of bone stock is the most difficult problem in femoral revision surgery. It increases a risk of complications during operation such as fracture or perforation, and also results in difficulty to achieve stability of the component. Even when the bone defect is moderate or severe, immediate fixation of the femoral component should be mainly supported by native bone. Additionally, in the remaining bone loss, bone tissue is grafted as much as possible. Survival rate of revision arthroplasty is low comparing with that of primary THA. In addition to the present revision, a possible next operation in the future should be considered when we plan revision surgery. Cemented femoral revision has a disadvantage of removal of the prosthesis when it is failed. Removal of cemented component has a high possibility of complications including perforation and fracture. During revision arthroplasty of a cemented femoral component using a modern cement technique, removal of the cement mantle is difficult, time-consuming and hazardous. The cement mass distal to the tip of the femoral component is the most difficult to be removed since it is often well fixed. The removal procedure has a high risk of causing femoral perforation or fracture. Furthermore, in re-revision, the cement fixation will be often beyond the isthmus and into distal bone defect. And revised cemented femoral components would be more difficult to be removed. On the contrary, loosened uncemented components will be removed relatively easily. Uncemented stem has the advantage of bone stock restoration. Simultaneous bone graft induces restoration of bone stock. Restored bone tissue will support the component, and this improvement of the bone stock would be beneficial when it is failed again in the future. According to these principles, we prefer uncemented femoral revisions rather than cemented revisions. This paper will show the clinical results of femoral revisions in our department mainly using an uncemented femoral component

One hundred and thirty-one cemented femoral stems inserted during revision total hip arthroplasty were reviewed to determine component survival. Harris Hip scores and complete radiographs were analysed. Survival at 10.5 years was 86.9%. Radiographically, 76.9% of the remaining components were classified as stable or possibly loose. Chi-square analysis of demographic and surgical factors determined age < 60 years, male gender and stems > 200 mm in length contributed significantly to failure (p < 0.05). Contrary to published results, we found that longer stems were more susceptible to failure. Revision femoral THA to a cemented component is an effective procedure that exhibits good long-term survival. The purpose of this study was to determine the long-term survival of cemented femoral components in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) and to identify factors significant to implant failure. Cemented femoral components demonstrate good long-term survival and remain a suitable option for revision THA for hips with an intact cortical tube. We report high long-term survival for this increasingly popular procedure, and contradict published results regarding the relationship between stem length and failure. A consecutive series of one hundred and thirty-one THA revisions using a cemented femoral component were reviewed. Ninety-four hips in eighty-five patients alive > six years post-operatively were studied with a mean follow-up of 10.5 years. Hips excluded from analysis were thirty deceased and seven lost to follow-up before six years post-operatively. Implant success was graded radiographically and by comparing pre-operative to recent Harris Hip scores. Of the ninety-four hips, fifteen (16%) femoral components were subsequently revised; nine (9.6%) for aseptic loosening, three (3.2%) for periprosthetic fracture, and one (1.1%) for each of stem fracture, instability, and sepsis. Survival at 10.5 years was 86.9% for all reasons and 91.0% for aseptic loosening as an endpoint. 76.9% of the retained components were radiologically classified as stable or possibly loose at follow-up. Factors significant for failure included age at revision < sixty years (p = 0.003), male patients (p = 0.036) and stems > 200 mm in length (p = 0.024)

In North America, cementless femoral replacement has all but replaced cementing and cement technique is at risk for becoming a lost art. Published results of cemented femoral components with a well-designed femoral component and good surgical technique are excellent and equivalent to cementless technology. With an increasing focus on cost as part of value-based care, consideration for returning to cement for a select population is appropriate. Furthermore, there are patient populations that may benefit from a cemented femur with registries demonstrating superior short term outcomes. These include the elderly and patients with osteoporotic femurs. The goal of femoral cementing is to maximise the interdigitation of bone cement with metaphyseal trabecular bone and the irregular surface of the endosteum while at the same time minimizing the risk of embolization. The steps for femoral cementing include:cFemoral broaching – understand the relationship between the broach and stem as it relates to cement mantle thickness; Canal preparation; Gentle curetting to remove loose cancellous bone; Pressurised lavage to remove fat and marrow elements – this decreases the risk of embolization and enhances the strength of the bone-cement interface; Dry the canal – suction, adrenaline soaked sponge – this minimises bleeding and enhances the strength of the bone cement interface; Cement preparation – vacuum mix or centrifuge the bone cement – this minimise large voids that weaken the bone cement; Cement insertion – insert in a retrograde fashion and pressurise the cement – this optimises the cement column and the bone cement interface; Stem insertion – insert slowly with a system that centralises the stem – this prevents mantle defects that have been associated with stem loosening

Background. The optimal surgical treatment for osteonecrosis of the femoral head has yet to be elucidated. To evaluate the role of femoral fixation techniques in hip resurfacing, we present a comparison of the results for two consecutive groups: Group 1 (75 hips) received hybrid hip resurfacing implants with a cemented femoral component; Group 2 (103 hips) received uncemented femoral components. Both groups received uncemented acetabular components. Methods. We retrospectively analyzed our clinical database to compare failures, reoperations, complications, clinical results, metal ion test results, and x-ray measurements. Using consecutive groups caused time interval bias, so we required all Group 2 patients be at least two years out from surgery; we compared results from two years and final follow-up. Results. Patient groups matched similarly in age, BMI, and percent female. Despite similar demographics, the uncemented, Group 2 cases showed a lower raw failure rate (0% vs. 16% p<0.0001), a lower 2-year failure rate (0% vs. 7%, p=0.04), and a superior 8-year implant survivorship (100% vs. 91%, log-rank p=0.0028, Wilcoxon p=0.0026). In cases that did not fail, patient clinical (p=0.05), activity (p=0.02), and pain scores (p=0.03), as well as acetabular component position (p<0.0001), all improved in Group 2, suggesting advancements in surgical management. There were no cases of adverse wear related failure in either group. Conclusions. This study demonstrates a superior outcome for cases of osteonecrosis with uncemented hip resurfacings compared to cases employing hybrid devices

Introduction. Revision of well cemented femoral components in revision THA can be technically challenging and time consuming. The cement in cement (CiC) technique addresses these issues. Results of femoral components which have undergone multiple CiC revisions have not previously been reported. Objective. We present the clinical and radiological results of femoral components which have undergone multiple CiC revisions with a minimum follow up of 5 years. Methods. Forty nine revision procedures were performed in 24 patients (10 males, 14 females). Seven patients died due to unrelated causes. The outcomes of all patients are known. Functional assessment were performed using the original Oxford Hip Score (OHS), Harris Hip Score (HHS) and the Merle d'Aubigne Postel(MDP) score. Statistical analysis was performed using the unpaired student's t-test. The level of significance was set at p=0.05. Radiographs were reviewed for signs of loosening at each visit. Results. The mean age was 67.5 years. Average duration of follow up was 81.7 months (range 24–240 months). Forty one revision procedures were performed for acetabular revision (the stem was removed to facilitate exposure), 6 were for revision of both components and 2 were isolated stem revisions. Each patient had undergone an average of 2 revision procedures. Four revisions were performed for infection. Mean preoperative Harris, Oxford and Merle D'Aubigne Postel scores were 38 (Range 3–44), 43 (Range 27–56) and 7 (Range 3–13) respectively. Average post-operative Harris, Oxford and Merle D'Aubigne Postel scores were 68 (Range 45–70) (p=0.0199), 31 (Range 12–56) (p=0.0397) and 13 (Range 4–18)(p=0.0423) respectively. There were no signs of loosening follow up. Conclusion. Cement in cement femoral revision is an effective technique for patients requiring multiple revisions of a well fixed cemented stem. It is associated with pain relief and significant functional improvement in the medium term