Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 4 of 4
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 105-B, Issue 8 | Pages 864 - 871
1 Aug 2023
Tyas B Marsh M de Steiger R Lorimer M Petheram TG Inman DS Reed MR Jameson SS

Aims

Several different designs of hemiarthroplasty are used to treat intracapsular fractures of the proximal femur, with large variations in costs. No clinical benefit of modular over monoblock designs has been reported in the literature. Long-term data are lacking. The aim of this study was to report the ten-year implant survival of commonly used designs of hemiarthroplasty.

Methods

Patients recorded by the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) between 1 September 1999 and 31 December 2020 who underwent hemiarthroplasty for the treatment of a hip fracture with the following implants were included: a cemented monoblock Exeter Trauma Stem (ETS), cemented Exeter V40 with a bipolar head, a monoblock Thompsons prosthesis (Cobalt/Chromium or Titanium), and an Exeter V40 with a Unitrax head. Overall and age-defined cumulative revision rates were compared over the ten years following surgery.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 104-B, Issue 2 | Pages 212 - 220
1 Feb 2022
Fishley WG Selvaratnam V Whitehouse SL Kassam AM Petheram TG

Aims

Femoral cement-in-cement revision is a well described technique to reduce morbidity and complications in hip revision surgery. Traditional techniques for septic revision of hip arthroplasty necessitate removal of all bone cement from the femur. In our two centres, we have been using a cement-in-cement technique, leaving the distal femoral bone cement in selected patients for septic hip revision surgery, both for single and the first of two-stage revision procedures. A prerequisite for adoption of this technique is that the surgeon considers the cement mantle to be intimately fixed to bone without an intervening membrane between cement and host bone. We aim to report our experience for this technique.

Methods

We have analyzed patients undergoing this cement-in-cement technique for femoral revision in infection, and present a consecutive series of 89 patients. Follow-up was undertaken at a mean of 56.5 months (24.0 to 134.7) for the surviving cases.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 98-B, Issue 11 | Pages 1441 - 1449
1 Nov 2016
Petheram TG Whitehouse SL Kazi HA Hubble MJW Timperley AJ Wilson MJ Howell JR

Aims

We present a minimum 20-year follow-up study of 382 cemented Exeter Universal total hip arthroplasties (350 patients) operated on at a mean age of 66.3 years (17 to 94).

Patients and Methods

All patients received the same design of femoral component, regardless of the original diagnosis. Previous surgery had been undertaken for 33 hips (8.6%). During the study period 218 patients with 236 hips (62%) died, 42 hips (11%) were revised and 110 hips (29%) in 96 patients were available for review. The acetabular components were varied and some designs are now obsolete, however they were all cemented.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 95-B, Issue 2 | Pages 173 - 176
1 Feb 2013
Petheram TG Bone M Joyce TJ Serrano-Pedraza I Reed MR Partington PF

Recent guidance recommends the use of a well-proven cemented femoral stem for hemiarthroplasty in the management of fractures of the femoral neck, and the Exeter Trauma Stem (ETS) has been suggested as an example of such an implant. The design of this stem was based on the well-proven Exeter Total Hip Replacement stem (ETHRS). This study assessed the surface finish of the ETS in comparison with the ETHRS. Two ETSs and two ETHRSs were examined using a profilometer with a precision of 1 nm and compared with an explanted Exeter Matt stem. The mean roughness average (RA) of the ETSs was approximately ten times higher than that of the ETHRSs (0.235 μm (0.095 to 0.452) versus 0.025 μm (0.011 to 0.059); p < 0.001). The historical Exeter Matt stem roughness measured a mean RA of 0.973 μm (0.658 to 1.159). The change of the polished Exeter stem to a matt surface finish in 1976 resulted in a high stem failure rate. We do not yet know whether the surface differences between ETS and ETHRS will be clinically significant. We propose the inclusion of hemiarthroplasty stems in national joint registries.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:173–6.