Objectives. Previous studies have evidenced cement-in-cement techniques as reliable in revision arthroplasty. Commonly, the original cement mantle is reshaped, aiding accurate placement of the new stem. Ultrasonic devices selectively remove cement, preserve host bone, and have lower cortical perforation rates than other techniques. As far as the authors are aware, the impact of ultrasonic devices on final cement-in-cement bonds has not been investigated. This study assessed the impact of cement removal using the Orthosonics System for Cemented Arthroplasty Revision (OSCAR; Orthosonics) on final cement-in-cement bonds. Methods. A total of 24 specimens were manufactured by pouring cement (Simplex P Bone Cement; Stryker) into stainless steel moulds, with a central rod polished to Stryker Exeter V40 specifications. After cement curing, the rods were removed and eight specimens were allocated to each of three internal surface preparation groups: 1) burr; 2) OSCAR; and 3) no treatment. Internal holes were recemented, and each specimen was cut into 5 mm discs. Shear testing of discs was completed by a technician blinded to the original grouping, recording ultimate shear strengths. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was completed, inspecting surfaces of shear-tested specimens. Results. The mean shear strength for OSCAR-prepared specimens (33.6 MPa) was significantly lower than for the control (46.3 MPa) and burr (45.8 MPa) groups (p < 0.001; one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Tukey’s post hoc analysis). There was no significant difference in shear strengths between control and burr groups (p = 0.57). Scanning electron microscopy of OSCAR specimens revealed evidence of porosity undiscovered in previous studies. Conclusion. Results show that the cement removal technique impacts on final cement-in-cement bonds. This in vitro study demonstrates significantly weaker bonds when using OSCAR prior to recementation into an old cement mantle compared with cement prepared with a burr or no treatment. This infers that care must be taken in surgical decision-making regarding cement removal techniques used during cement-in-cement revision arthroplasty, suggesting that the risks and benefits of ultrasonic cement removal need consideration. Cite this article: A. Liddle, M. Webb, N. Clement, S. Green, J. Liddle, M. German, J. Holland. Ultrasonic cement removal in cement-in-cement revision total hip arthroplasty: What is the effect on the final cement-in-cement bond? Bone Joint Res 2019;8:246–252. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.86.BJR-2018-0313.R1

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. Results. Seven patients (7.9%) required further revision for infection. Ten patients died of causes unrelated to their infection before their two-year review (mean 5.9 months; 0.9 to 18.6). One patient was lost to follow-up at five months after surgery, and two patients died of causes unrelated to their hip shortly after their two-year review was due without attending. Of the remaining patients, 69 remained infection-free at final review. Radiological review confirms the mechanical success of the procedure as previously described in aseptic revision, and postoperative Oxford Hip Scores suggest satisfactory functional outcomes. Conclusion. In conclusion, we found that retaining a well-fixed femoral cement mantle in the presence of infection and undertaking a cement-in-cement revision was successful in 82 of the patients (92.1%) in our series of 89, both in terms of eradication of infection and component fixation. These results are comparable to other more invasive techniques and offer significant potential benefits to the patient. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(2):212–220

Aims. Compared with primary total hip arthroplasty (THA), revision surgery can be challenging. The cement-in-cement femoral revision technique involves removing a femoral component from a well-fixed femoral cement mantle and cementing a new stem into the original mantle. This technique is widely used and when carried out for the correct indications, is fast, relatively inexpensive and carries a reduced short-term risk for the patient compared with the alternative of removing well-fixed cement. We report the outcomes of this procedure when two commonly used femoral stems are used. Patients and Methods. We identified 1179 cement-in-cement stem revisions involving an Exeter or a Lubinus stem reported to the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register (SHAR) between January 1999 and December 2015. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed. Results. Survivorship is reported up to six years and was better in the Exeter group (91% standard deviation (. sd). 2.8% versus 85% . sd. 5.0%) (p = 0.02). There was, however, no significant difference in the survival of the stem and risk of re-revision for any reason (p = 0.58) and for aseptic loosening (p = 0.97), between revisions in which the Exeter stem (94% . sd. 2.2%; 98% . sd. 1.6%) was used compared with those in which the Lubinus stem (95% . sd. 3.2%; 98% . sd.  2.2%) was used. The database did not allow identification of whether a further revision was indicated for loosening of the acetabular or femoral component or both. Conclusion. The cement-in-cement technique for revision of the femoral component gave promising results using both designs of stem, six years post-operatively. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B(4 Supple B):27–32

Aims. We present the clinical and radiological results at a minimum follow-up of five years for patients who have undergone multiple cement-in-cement revisions of their femoral component at revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). Patients and Methods. We reviewed the outcome on a consecutive series of 24 patients (10 men, 14 women) (51 procedures) who underwent more than one cement-in-cement revision of the same femoral component. The mean age of the patients was 67.5 years (36 to 92) at final follow-up. Function was assessed using the original Harris hip score (HHS), Oxford Hip Score (OHS) and the Merle D’Aubigné Postel score (MDP). Results. The mean length of follow-up was 81.7 months (64 to 240). A total of 41 isolated acetabular revisions were performed in which stem removal facilitated access to the acetabulum, six revisions were conducted for loosening of both components and two were isolated stem revisions (each of these patients had undergone at least two revisions). There was significant improvement in the OHS (p = 0.041), HHS (p = 0.019) and MDP (p = 0.042) scores at final follow-up There were no stem revisions for aseptic loosening. Survival of the femoral component was 91.9% (95% confidence intervals (CI) 71.5 to 97.9) at five years and 91.7% (95% CI 70 to 97) at ten years (number at risk 13), with stem revision for all causes as the endpoint. Conclusion. Cement-in-cement revision is a viable technique for performing multiple revisions of the well cemented femoral component during revision total hip arthroplasty at a minimum of five years follow-up. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:199–203

Aims. Cement-in-cement revision of the femoral component represents a widely practised technique for a variety of indications in revision total hip arthroplasty. In this study, we compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of two polished tapered femoral components. Methods. From our prospectively collated database, we identified all patients undergoing cement-in-cement revision from January 2005 to January 2013 who had a minimum of two years' follow-up. All cases were performed by the senior author using either an Exeter short revision stem or the C-Stem AMT high offset No. 1 prosthesis. Patients were followed-up annually with clinical and radiological assessment. Results. A total of 97 patients matched the inclusion criteria (50 Exeter and 47 C-Stem AMT components). There were no significant differences between the patient demographic data in either group. Mean follow-up was 9.7 years. A significant improvement in Oxford Hip Score (OHS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and 12-item Short-Form Survey (SF-12) scores was observed in both cohorts. Leg lengths were significantly shorter in the Exeter group, with a mean of -4 mm in this cohort compared with 0 mm in the C-Stem AMT group. One patient in the Exeter group had early evidence of radiological loosening. In total, 16 patients (15%) underwent further revision of the femoral component (seven in the C-Stem AMT group and nine in the Exeter group). No femoral components were revised for aseptic loosening. There were two cases of femoral component fracture in the Exeter group. Conclusion. Our series shows promising mid-term outcomes for the cement-in-cement revision technique using either the Exeter or C-Stem AMT components. These results demonstrate that cement-in-cement revision using a double or triple taper-slip design is a safe and reliable technique when used for the correct indications. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(7):1215–1221

Periprosthetic fractures (PPF) of the femur following total hip arthroplasty represent a significant complication with a rising incidence. The commonest subtype is Vancouver B2 type, for which revision to a long uncemented tapered fluted stem is a widely accepted management. In this study we compare this procedure to the less commonly performed cement-in-cement revision. All patients undergoing surgical intervention for a Vancouver B2 femoral PPF in a cemented stem from 2008 – 2018 were identified. We collated patient age, gender, ASA score, BMI, operative time, blood transfusion requirement, change in haemoglobin (Hb) level, length of hospital stay and last Oxford Hip Score (OHS). Radiographic analysis was performed to assess time to fracture union and leg length discrepancy. Complications and survivorship of implant and patients were recorded. 43 uncemented and 29 cement-in-cement revisions were identified. There was no difference in patient demographics between groups. A significantly shorter operative time was found in the cement-in-cement group, but there was no difference in transfusion requirement, Hb change, or length of hospital stay. OHS was comparable between groups. A non-significant increase in overall complication rates was found in the revision uncemented group, with a significantly higher dislocation rate. Time of union was comparable and there were no non-unions in the cement-in-cement group. A greater degree of stem subsidence was found in the uncemented group. There was no difference in any revision surgery required in either group. Three patients in the uncemented group died in the perioperative period, compared to none in the cement-in-cement group. With appropriate patient selection, both cement-in-cement and long uncemented tapered stem revision represent appropriate treatment options for Vancouver B2 fractures

Femoral cement-in-cement revision is a well described technique to reduce morbidity and complications in hip revision surgery. Traditional techniques for septic revision necessitate removal of all bone cement from the femur. In our two institutions, we have been using a cement-in-cement technique, leaving the distal femoral cement in selected cases for septic hip revision surgery. Between February 2010 and September 2019, 89 patients with prosthetic hip infection underwent first or single stage procedures leaving the distal femoral cement in situ and performing a cement-in-cement revision. The mean patient age was 72.0 years (24–92). The median time from the last arthroplasty procedure was 29.0 months (1–294). 81 patients underwent revision using a cemented Exeter stem, 7 patients received an articulating spacer, and one patient underwent excision arthroplasty with the distal cement left in situ. Patients received clinical and radiographic follow-up with a mean of 42.8 months (range 11.0–120.1 months). Oxford hip scores were collected from each institution's existing databases. 9 patients (10.1%) died within one year of surgery. No deaths were directly related to joint infection or the surgery. One patient was lost to follow up before one year. Of the remainder, 7 patients (8.9%) required further procedures for infection and were therefore considered to be treatment failures. 6 patients (7.6%) underwent planned second stage procedures with no recurrence of infection. 7 patients (8.9%) had further surgery for non-infective reasons. The Kaplan-Meier estimate of infection free survival at one year was 93.7% (95% CI 88.4 to 99.0%). No patients underwent revision for stem loosening. Oxford hip scores were available at over one year postoperatively for 51 patients with a mean score of 30.6, and a mean gain of 11.9. In our combined cohort of patients, cement-in-cement revision had an infection eradication rate of 91.1%. Patient selection is crucial, and the procedure can only be performed when there is a well-fixed cement mantle. However, when strict criteria are followed, this technique offers potential significant benefits to surgeons performing this challenging surgery, and more importantly the patients undergoing them

Cement-in-cement revision of the femoral component represents a widely practiced technique for a variety of indications. In this study we compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of two polished tapered stems. From our prospectively collated database we identified all patients undergoing cement-in-cement revision from January 2005 – 2013 who had a minimum of two years follow-up. All cases were performed by the senior author using either an Exeter short revision stem or the C-stem AMT high offset No 1. Patients were followed-up annually with clinical and radiological assessment. Ninety-seven patients matched the inclusion criteria. There were 50 Exeter and 47 C-stem AMT components. There were no significant differences between the patient demographics in either group. Mean follow-up was 9.7 years. A significant improvement in OHS, WOMAC and SF-12 scores was observed in both cohorts. Leg lengths were significantly shorter in the Exeter group, with a mean of -4mm in this cohort compared to 0mm in the C-stem AMT group. One patient in the Exeter group had early evidence of radiological loosening. In total, 16 patients (15%) underwent further revision of the femoral component (seven in the C-stem AMT group and nine in the Exeter group). No femoral components were revised for aseptic loosening. There were two cases of femoral component fracture in the Exeter group. Our series shows promising long-term outcomes for the cement-in-cement revision technique using either the Exeter or C-stem AMT components. These results demonstrate that cement-in-cement revision using a double or triple taper-slip design is a safe and reliable technique when used for the correct indications

Introduction. Stem revision with retention of the old cement mantle (cement-in-cement revision) in cases with an intact cement/bone interface is an appealing option. There has been an increasing use of this technique. In 2014 this cement-in- cement technique was used in 10% of all stem revisions reported to the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register (SHAR). We analysed the outcome of cement-in-cement stem revisions reported to the SHAR during years 2001–2014. Patients/Materials & Methods. Since 2001 1292 cement-in-cement revisions (study group), performed with a short (≤150 mm) Exeter stem (n=973) or a Lubinus stem (n=319) were reported to the SHAR. Stem revisions, using short Exeter and Lubinus stems without the use of the cement-in-cement technique (n=2893) acted as the control group in this analysis. Both groups were comparable regarding primary diagnosis. In the study group there were more females and the mean age (73 years) was 2 year older (p<0.001). The primary outcome was re-revision due to all causes (n=413). Re-revision of the stem due to all causes, infections excluded (n=212) was used as secondary outcome. Survival analysis using Kaplan-Meier was performed. Results. Survival with re-revision due to all causes at 8 years in the cement-in-cement group (85±3%) was comparable to the control group (84±2%) (p=0.73). The survival of the stem with re-revision due to aseptic loosening at 8 years did not differ between the groups (92±3% and 91±1% respectively) (p=0.52). Discussion. Cement-in-cement revisions had a re-revision rate of the same magnitude as in revisions where the cement mantle was extracted. In this later group more severe bone defects may be present. Conclusion. We believe that cement-in-cement revision with a shorter operation time and less preoperative complications could be an attractive option in cases with intact cement/bone interface

Introduction. The removal of a well fixed cement mantle for revision of a total hip replacement (THR) can be technically challenging and carries significant risks. Therefore, a cement-in-cement revision of the femoral component is an attractive option. The Exeter Short Revision Stem (SRS) is a 125 mm polished taper stem with 44 mm offset specifically designed for cement-in-cement revisions. Only small series using this implant have been reported. Patients/Materials & Methods. Records for all patients who had undergone a cement-in-cement revision with the SRS were assessed for 1) radiological femoral component loosening 2) clinical femoral component loosening 3) further revision of the femoral component 4) complications. We assessed serial radiographs for changes within the cement mantle and for implant subsidence. Results. 50 implants in 46 patients were reviewed. Mean age at surgery was 67.7 (range 39–88) years. 7 patient (8 implant) deaths at mean 128 (range 17 – 267) weeks following surgery were identified. Complications included one intra-operative greater trochanter fracture, one femoral nerve palsy, and one early infection following surgery. Three implants required revision. One at 11 weeks following surgery for recurrent dislocation, one at 138 weeks for infection and one at 290 weeks for breakage of the femoral implant. The mean time from surgery to both radiographic and clinical follow-up was 3.4 years. Radiographs available for 48 implants showed no radiographic evidence of loosening. Clinical follow-up information was available for 45 patients. Only one patient reported thigh pain but a bone scan showed no evidence of loosening. Discussion. This is the largest reported series with SRS we are aware of outside the design centre. Conclusions. The Exeter Short Revision Stem provides a viable option for cement-in-cement revision surgery. Further evaluation of the use of this implant in patients with a high BMI is required given the implant failure in this series and the reported literature

Cement-in-cement femoral revision is a proven technique in revision total hip arthroplasty, with excellent results when using standard sized Exeter stems. The Exeter 44/00 125 mm short revision stem was introduced in 2004 to facilitate cement-in-cement revision. The stem is 25mm shorter and has a slimmer body to allow greater flexibility to adjust depth of insertion and version of the stem. However, it is not known if this change in stem length and size effects its longer term performance. We therefore reviewed the clinical outcome and survival of the Exeter 44/00 short stem used for cement-in-cement revision in our unit, with a minimum of 5 years follow up. 166 cases were performed between 2004 and 2010. 103 hips were available for 5 year clinical and radiological follow up, with 91 hips surviving to final review in 2017. At 5 years, 43 hips had died, 13 were revised and 7 were too frail to attend clinical review. The fate of all 166 hips were known and included in the survival analysis. Median clinical scores improved significantly. Sixteen hips required re-revision (infection 6, loose cup 3, periprosthetic fracture 3, instability 2, stem fracture with chronic infection 1 and pain 1). Kaplan-meier survival analysis revealed 100% survival for aseptic loosening, 96.8% survival for stem failure and 88.9% survival for all causes. This is the largest series with the longest follow up of the Exeter 44/00 short revision stem. The stem performs equally well as standard Exeter stems with regards to aseptic loosening. The single stem fracture occurred secondary to bone loss in chronic infection, highlighting the importance of providing adequate proximal support for the stem. Periprosthetic fracture occurred in 2.4% of this series of revision cases. Larger registry-based studies may provide additional information on the performance of this stem

The mechanical performance of the cement-in-cement interface in revision surgery has not been fully investigated. The quantitative effect posed by interstitial fluids and roughening of the primary mantle remains unclear. We have analysed the strength of the bilaminar cement-bone interface after exposure of the surface of the primary mantle to roughening and fluid interference. The end surfaces of cylindrical blocks of cement were machined smooth (Ra = 200 nm) or rough (Ra = 5 μm) and exposed to either different volumes of water and carboxymethylcellulose (a bone-marrow equivalent) or left dry. Secondary blocks were cast against the modelled surface. Monoblocks of cement were used as a control group. The porosity of the samples was investigated using micro-CT. Samples were exposed to a single shearing force to failure. The mean failure load of the monoblock control was 5.63 kN (95% confidence interval (CI) 5.17 to 6.08) with an estimated shear strength of 36 MPa. When small volumes of any fluid or large volumes were used, the respective values fell between 4.66 kN and 4.84 kN with no significant difference irrespective of roughening (p > 0.05). Large volumes of carboxymethylcellulose significantly weakened the interface. Roughening in this group significantly increased the strength with failure loads of 2.80 kN (95% CI 2.37 to 3.21) compared with 0.86 kN (95% CI 0.43 to 1.27) in the smooth variant. Roughening of the primary mantle may not therefore be as crucial as has been previously thought in clinically relevant circumstances

There is evidence that recommends the retention of a well-fixed cement mantle at the time of revision hip arthroplasty. The cement-cement interface has been proven to have a greater shear strength than a new bone-cement interface after removing the old cement mantle. This study reviewed a series of acetabular revision procedures with a minimum 2 year follow-up where the original cement mantle was left intact. From 1988 to 2004, 61 consecutive cement-in-cement revisions of the acetabular component were performed at our institution. Outcome was based on functional assessment using the Oxford, Charnley, and Harris scoring systems as well as radiographic analysis using the DeLee and Charnley criteria. In total 61 procedures were performed in 59 patients (40 female and 19 male), whose mean age at surgery was 75 years (range 40 to 99 years). 47 hips (77%) were performed for recurrent dislocation, 12 for polyethylene wear associated with other reasons for revision (aseptic stem loosening in 8, stem fracture in 2, femoral periprosthetic fracture in 1, subluxation in 1), 1 for unexplained pain, and 1 for disarticulation (intraprosthetic dislocation) of a constrained liner. No case was lost to follow-up. There was a significant improvement in the functional scores from the pre-operative status with the patients maintaining a low level of pain. There was one re-revision for aseptic cup loosening at 7 years, with 1 further case of radiological loosening identified at the latest review. There were 6 further cases of dislocation 4 of which were treated with further in-cement revisions. All other cases showed well-fixed components on radiographic analysis and no evidence of failure at the most recent follow up. The cement-in-cement revision technique can be used in selected cases of acetabular revision surgery, providing satisfactory functional outcomes backed up by good radiographic results. Blood loss and surgical time are also significantly decreased

The technique of femoral cement-in-cement revision is well established, but there are no previous series reporting its use on the acetabular side at the time of revision total hip replacement. We describe the technique and report the outcome of 60 consecutive acetabular cement-in-cement revisions in 59 patients at a mean follow-up of 8.5 years (5 to 12). All had a radiologically and clinically well-fixed acetabular cement mantle at the time of revision. During the follow-up 29 patients died, but no hips were lost to follow-up. The two most common indications for acetabular revision were recurrent dislocation (46, 77%) and to complement femoral revision (12, 20%). . Of the 60 hips, there were two cases of aseptic loosening of the acetabular component (3.3%) requiring re-revision. No other hip was clinically or radiologically loose (96.7%) at the latest follow-up. One hip was re-revised for infection, four for recurrent dislocation and one for disarticulation of a constrained component. At five years the Kaplan-Meier survival rate was 100% for aseptic loosening and 92.2% (95% CI 84.8 to 99.6), with revision for any cause as the endpoint. These results support the use of cement-in-cement revision on the acetabular side in appropriate cases. Theoretical advantages include preservation of bone stock, reduced operating time, reduced risk of complications and durable fixation

Purpose: There is evidence that recommends the retention of a well-fixed cement mantle at the time of revision hip arthroplasty. The cement-cement interface has been proven to have a greater shear strength than a new bone-cement interface after removing the old cement mantle. Method: This study reviewed a series of acetabular revision procedures with a minimum 2-year follow-up where the original cement mantle was left intact. From 1988 to 2004, 63 consecutive cement-in-cement revisions of the acetabular component were performed at our institution. Outcome was based on functional assessment using the Oxford, Charnley, and Harris scoring systems as well as radiographic analysis using the DeLee and Charnley criteria. Results: In total 63 procedures were performed in 61 patients (40 female and 21 male), whose mean age at surgery was 74 years (range 40 to 99 years). 47 hips (75%) were performed for recurrent dislocation, 13 for aseptic loosening, 1 for pain, 1 for excessive shortening, and 1 for disarticulation of a constrained liner. No case was lost to follow-up. There was a significant improvement in the functional scores from the pre-operative status with the patients maintaining a low level of pain. There was one re-revision for aseptic cup loosening at 7 years, with 1 further case of radiological loosening identified at the latest review. There were 6 further cases of dislocation 5 of which were treated with further in-cement revisions. All other cases showed well-fixed components on radiographic analysis and no evidence of failure at the most recent follow up. Conclusion: The cement-in-cement revision technique can be used in selected cases of acetabular revision surgery, providing satisfactory functional outcomes backed up by good radiographic results. Blood loss and surgical time are also significantly decreased

The cement-in-cement femoral revision is a possible method of reducing complications. During recent research on this revision it was observed that a number of the inner cement contained macropores. It was hypothesized that porosity of the mantle influenced the subsidence and inducible displacement of the revision stems. The aim was to calculate the porosity and assess its relationship to the above factors. Primary cement mantles were formed by cementing a stem into sections of tubular steel. At this stage, the specimen was chosen to be in a test or a control group. If in the test group, it underwent a fatigue of 1 million cycles. This was carried out in a fatigue machine mounted with a specifically designed rig. If in the control group, no such fatigue was undertaken. Into these fatigued and unfatigued mantles, the cement-in-cement procedure was performed. Both groups underwent a fatigue of again 1 million cycles. Subsidence and inducible displacement was recorded. The composites were then sectioned and photographed. The images underwent image analysis to calculate the porosity. Multiple regression and a general linear model showed subsidence was inversely correlated to the porosity of the “fresh cement” in Gruen zones 3 and 5 (p = 0.021, R2 = 0.36). This relationship was not expected. The reason could be related to the fact that the migration of the stems in each separate direction was not monitored. Inducible displacement was inversely correlated to porosity of the inner cement, again in Gruen zones 3 and 5 (p = 0.001, R2 = 0.61). A possible explanation is that the stem was able to subside more due to the higher porosity and find a more stable position. The subsidence and inducible displacement of these stems is influenced by porosity, specifically by the porosity of the distal inner cement

Cement-in-cement femoral component revision is a useful and commonly practised technique. Onerous and hazardous re-shaping of the original cement mantle is required if the new stem does not seat easily. Furthermore, without removing the entirety of the original cement mantle, the freedom to alter anteversion or leg length is difficult to predict preoperatively. We present data from in vitro experiments testing the compatibility of the top cemented stems according to UK registry figures (NJR 2013). This data augments preoperative planning by indicating which revision stems require minimal or no cement reshaping when being inserted into another stem's mantle. We also present the maximum shortening and anteversion that can be achieved without reshaping the original cement mantle

Removal of well-fixed cement at the time of revision THA for sepsis is time consuming and risks bone stock loss, femoral perforation or fracture. We report our experience of two-stage revision for infection in a series of cases in which we have retained well-fixed femoral cement. All patients underwent two-stage revision for infection. At the first stage the prostheses and acetabular cement were removed but when the femoral cement mantle demonstrated good osseo-integration it was left in-situ. Following Girdlestone excision arthroplasty (GEA), patients received local antibiotics delivered by cement spacers, as well as systemic antibiotics. At the second stage the existing cement mantle was reamed, washed and dried and then a femoral component was cemented into the old mantle. Sixteen patients (M:F 5:11) had at least three years follow-up (mean 80 months – range 43 to 91). One patient died of an unrelated cause at 53 months. Recurrence of infection was not suspected in this case. The mean time to first stage revision was 57 months (3 to 155). The mean time between first and second stages was nine months (1 to 35). Organisms were identified in 14 (87.5%) cases (5 Staphylococcus Aureas, 4 Group B Streptococcus, 2 Coagulase negative Staphylococcus, 2 Enterococcus Faecalis, 1 Escheria Coli). At second stage, five (31.2%) acetabulae were uncemented and 11 (68.8%) were cemented. There were two complications; one patient dislocated 41 days post-operatively and a second patient required an acetabular revision at 44 days for failure of fixation. No evidence of infection was found at re-revision. One patient (1/16, 7%) has been re-revised for recurrent infection. Currently no other patients are suspected of having a recurrence of infection (93%). Retention of a well-fixed femoral cement mantle during two-stage revision for infection and subsequent cement-in-cement reconstruction appears safe with a success rate of 93%. Advantages include a shorter operating time, reduced loss of bone stock, improved component fixation and a technically easier second stage procedure

There is evidence that recommends the retention of a well-fixed cement mantle at the time of revision hip arthroplasty. The cement-cement interface has been proven to have greater shear strength than a new bone-cement interface after removing a well-fixed cement mantle. This study reviewed a series of acetabular revision procedures with a minimum 2-year follow-up where the original cement mantle was left intact. From 1988 to 2004, 60 consecutive cement-in-cement revisions of the acetabular component were performed at our institution. Outcome was based on functional assessment using the Oxford, Charnley, and Harris scoring systems as well as radiographic analysis using the DeLee and Charnley criteria. In total 60 procedures were performed in 60 patients (40 female and 20 male), whose mean age at surgery was 75 years (range 40 to 99 years). 80% were performed for recurrent dislocation, 13.3% during femoral component revision, 5% for acetabular component wear, and 1.7% for pain. No case was lost to follow-up. There was one re-revision for aseptic cup loosening at 7 years, with 1 further case of radiological loosening identified at the latest review. There were 6 further cases of dislocation 4 of which were treated with further in-cement revisions. All other cases showed well-fixed components on radiographic analysis and no evidence of failure at the most recent follow up. The cement-in-cement technique already has a good body of evidence based on revision of the femoral component and this study shows that the technique can be applied to acetabular revisions as well with good functional and radiological results in the short to medium term