We reviewed 44 consecutive revision hip replacements in 38 patients performed using the cement-in-cement technique. All were performed for acetabular loosening in the presence of a well-fixed femoral component. The mean follow-up was 5.1 years (2 to 10.1). Radiological analysis at final follow-up indicated no loosening of the femoral component, except for one case with a continuous radiolucent line in all zones and peri-prosthetic fracture which required further revision. Peri-operative complications included nine proximal femoral fractures (20.4%) and perforation of the proximal femur in one hip. In five hips wiring or fixation with a braided suture was undertaken but no additional augmentation was required. There was an improvement in the mean Japanese Orthopaedic Association score from 55.5 (28 to 81) pre-operatively to 77.8 (40 to 95) at final follow-up (p < 0.001). Revision using a cement-in-cement technique allows increased exposure for acetabular revision and is effective in the medium term. Further follow-up is required to assess the long-term results in the light of in vitro studies which have questioned the quality of the cement-in-cement bond

Aims. We report the incidence of radiolucent lines (RLLs) using two flanged acetabular components at total hip arthroplasty (THA) and the effect of the Rim Cutter. Patients and Methods. We performed a retrospective review of 300 hips in 292 patients who underwent primary cemented THA. A contemporary flanged acetabular component was used with (group 1) and without (group 2) the use of the Rim Cutter and the Rimfit acetabular component was used with the Rim Cutter (group 3). RLLs and clinical outcomes were evaluated immediately post-operatively and at five years post-operatively. Results. There was no significant difference in the incidence of RLLs on the immediate post-operative radiographs (p = 0.241) or at five years post-operatively (p = 0.463). RLLs were seen on the immediate post-operative radiograph in 2% of hips in group 1, in 5% in group 2 and in 7% in group 3. Five years post-operatively, there were RLLs in 42% of hips in group 1, 41% in group 2 and in 49% in group 3. In the vast majority of hips, in each group, the RLL was present in DeLee and Charnley zone 1 only (86%, 83%, 67% respectively). Oxford and Harris Hip scores improved significantly in all groups. There was no significant difference in these scores or in the change in scores between the groups, with follow-up. Conclusion. Despite the Rim Cutter showing promising results in early laboratory and clinical studies, this analysis of the radiological and clinical outcome five years post-operatively does not show any advantage over and above modern cementing techniques in combination with a well performing cemented acetabular component. For this reason, we no longer use the Rim Cutter in routine primary THA. . Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1450–7

Revision of a cemented hemiarthroplasty of the hip may be a hazardous procedure with high rates of intra-operative complications. Removing well-fixed cement is time consuming and risks damaging already weak bone or perforating the femoral shaft. The cement-in-cement method avoids removal of intact cement and has shown good results when used for revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). The use of this technique for the revision of a hemiarthroplasty to THA has not been previously reported. A total of 28 consecutive hemiarthroplasties (in 28 patients) were revised to a THA using an Exeter stem and the cement-in-cement technique. There were four men and 24 women; their mean age was 80 years (35 to 93). Clinical and radiographic data, as well as operative notes, were collected prospectively and no patient was lost to follow-up. Four patients died within two years of surgery. The mean follow up of the remainder was 70 months (25 to 124). Intra-operatively there was one proximal perforation, one crack of the femoral calcar and one acetabular fracture. No femoral components have required subsequent revision for aseptic loosening or are radiologically loose. . Four patients with late complications (14%) have since undergone surgery (two for a peri-prosthetic fracture, and one each for deep infection and recurrent dislocation) resulting in an overall major rate of complication of 35.7%. The cement-in-cement technique provides reliable femoral fixation in this elderly population and may reduce operating time and rates of complication. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1623–7

The removal of well-fixed bone cement from the femoral canal during revision of a total hip replacement (THR) can be difficult and risks the loss of excessive bone stock and perforation or fracture of the femoral shaft. Retaining the cement mantle is attractive, yet the technique of cement-in-cement revision is not widely practised. We have used this procedure at our hospital since 1989. The stems were removed to gain a better exposure for acetabular revision, to alter version or leg length, or for component incompatibility.

We studied 136 hips in 134 patients and followed them up for a mean of eight years (5 to 15). A further revision was required in 35 hips (25.7%), for acetabular loosening in 26 (19.1%), sepsis in four, instability in three, femoral fracture in one and stem fracture in one. No femoral stem needed to be re-revised for aseptic loosening.

A cement-in-cement revision of the femoral stem is a reliable technique in the medium term. It also reduces the risk of perforation or fracture of the femoral shaft.

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.

Aims

Highly polished stems with force-closed design have shown satisfactory clinical results despite being related to relatively high early migration. It has been suggested that the minimal thickness of cement mantles surrounding the femoral stem should be 2 mm to 4 mm to avoid aseptic loosening. The line-to-line cementing technique of the femoral stem, designed to achieve stem press-fit, challenges this opinion. We compared the migration of a highly polished stem with force-closed design by standard and line-to-line cementing to investigate whether differences in early migration of the stems occur in a clinical study.

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. The aim of this study was to report the initial results of the Exeter V40 stem, which became available in 2000. Patients and Methods. A total of 540 total hip arthroplasties (THAs) were performed in our unit using this stem between December 2000 and May 2002. Our routine protocol is to review patients postoperatively and at one, five, and ten years following surgery. Results. A total of 145 patients (26.9%) died before ten years and of the remaining 395 stems, 374 (94.7%) remain in situ. A total of 21 well-fixed stems (5.3%) were revised. Ten were exchanged using a cement-in-cement technique to facilitate acetabular revision. Three were revised for infection, one for instability, one for fracture of the stem, and six following a periprosthetic fracture. An additional 16 acetabular components (4.1%) were revised; five for aseptic loosening and 11 for instability. There were no revisions for aseptic loosening of the stem, and no evidence of aseptic loosening in any hip. The fate of every stem is known and all patients remain under review. Survivorship, with revision of the stem for aseptic loosening as the endpoint, was 100%. At 13.5 years, the Kaplan–Meier survival rate for all-cause revision of the stem was 96.8% (95% confidence interval (CI) 94.8 to 98.8) and all-cause revision (including acetabular revision, infection, and instability) was 91.2% (95% CI 88.3 to 94.1). Conclusion. No stem was revised for aseptic loosening in this series. The contemporary Exeter V40 stem continues to perform well, and survival has remained comparable with that of the Exeter Universal stem. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:1002–9

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

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

Using a modern cementing technique, we implanted 22 stereolithographic polymeric replicas of the Charnley-Kerboul stem in 11 pairs of human cadaver femora. On one side, the replicas were cemented line-to-line with the largest broach. On the other, one-size undersized replicas were used (radial difference, 0.89 mm . sd. 0.13). CT analysis showed that the line-to-line stems without distal centralisers were at least as well aligned and centered as undersized stems with a centraliser, but were surrounded by less cement and presented more areas of thin (< 2 mm) or deficient (< 1 mm) cement. These areas were located predominantly at the corners and in the middle and distal thirds of the stem. Nevertheless, in line-to-line stems, penetration of cement into cancellous bone resulted in a mean thickness of cement of 3.1 mm (. sd. 0.6) and only 6.2% of deficient and 26.4% of thin cement. In over 90% of these areas, the cement was directly supported by cortical bone or cortical bone with less than 1 mm of cancellous bone interposed. When Charnley-Kerboul stems are cemented line-to-line, good clinical results are observed because cement-deficient areas are limited and are frequently supported by cortical bone

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

The aim of this study was to obtain detailed long-term data on the cement-bone interface in patients with cemented stems, implanted using the constrained fixation technique. A total of eight stems were removed together with adjacent bone during post-mortem examinations of patients with well-functioning prostheses. Specimens were cut at four defined levels, contact radiographs were obtained for each level, and slices were prepared for histological analysis. Clinical data, clinical radiographs, contact radiographs and histological samples were examined for signs of loosening and remodelling. The mean radiological follow-up was 9.6 years and all stems were well-fixed, based on clinical and radiological criteria. Contact radiographs revealed an incomplete cement mantle but a complete filling of the medullary canal for all implants. Various amounts of polyethylene particles were evident at the cement-bone interface of seven stems, with no accompanying inflammatory reaction. Cortical atrophy and the formation of an ‘inner cortex’ were confirmed in six of eight stems by contact radiographs and histology, but were only visible on two clinical radiographs. Our results confirm that a complete cement mantle is not essential for the survival of Müller straight stems into the mid term, and support our hypothesis that no benefit to long-term survival can be expected from modern cementing techniques

The Morscher-Spotorno (MS-30) femoral stem is a stainless-steel, straight, three-dimensionally tapered, collarless implant for cemented fixation in total hip replacement. We report the results at ten years of a consecutive series of 124 total hip replacements in 121 patients with the matt-surfaced MS-30 stem and an alumina ceramic head of 28-mm diameter. All the stems were fixed with Palacos bone cement with gentamicin using a modern cementing technique. They were combined with an uncemented, press-fit cup. The mean period of observation was 10.2 years (8.3 to 12.1) and no patient was lost to follow-up. Twenty-seven patients (22%) died with the implant in situ. Nine could only be interviewed by telephone. We included 85 patients with 88 hips in the clinical and radiological follow-up examinations. None of the stems or cups had been revised. The Harris hip score was excellent or good in 97% (85 hips) and moderate in 3% (three hips). Radiologically, six hips (6.8%) had osteolysis adjacent to the stem, mostly in Gruen zone 7. Twenty (22.7%) showed one or more radiolucent lines. Twenty-two stems (25%) had subsided by 2 mm to 5 mm. In these cases two showed osteolysis (9.1%) with subsidence and four without (6.1%). Radiolucent lines were seen in seven with migration (31.8%) and in 13 without (19.7%). No infections and no acetabular osteolysis were observed. The clinical results were excellent with survivorship after ten years of 100% and only a slightly statistically non-significant higher rate of osteolysis and radiolucency in cases of subsidence

When Radiolucent lines (RLL) are observed around cemented acetabular components, they may progress and be associated with loosening. We reviewed the incidence and progression of RLLs around the Exeter Contemporary flanged acetabular component and compared our results with other published series. We reviewed a consecutive series of 203 sockets with a minimum 10-year follow-up. Up to date radiographs were reviewed by 2 independent assessors for the presence, location and thickness of RLL and an assessment for loosening/migration was made. Initial post-operative radiographs were examined for any case with RLLs at review. There were no revisions for aseptic loosening. 103 hips remained in situ with a minimum follow up of 10 years. Lucent lines were seen on 37/103 (36%) of hips with a mean follow up of 12.1 years (10.0–13.9 years). In these 37 hips, the lucency was present in one zone in 84%, two zones in 8% and all three zones in 8%. Of the 37 hips with a RLL at minimum 10 years follow up, five exhibited a RLL immediately post-operatively. All 5 of these lines were initially isolated to zone 1 and progressed over the 10 years around at least 1 more zone. Only one line became circumferential, although the cup did not migrate. Compared to previous papers (DeLee & Charnley, Hodgkinson and Garcia-Cimbrelo) the presence of RLL at 10 years is reduced in our series (table 2) and no cup migrated. All RLL seen in cups at both 10 years and immediate post-operatively in our series progressed (table 3), unlike in the previous studies. This reduction in lucent lines may be down to modern cementing techniques, cup design or a combination of both. For any figures or tables, please contact the authors directly by clicking on ‘Info & Metrics’ above to access author contact details

Numerous studies have evidenced cement-in-cement techniques as reliable in revision arthroplasty. The original cement mantle is commonly reshaped to aid 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, their impact on final cement-cement bonds has not been investigated. This study assessed the impact of cement removal using OSCAR (Orthosonics System for Cemented Arthroplasty Revision, ORTHOSONICS) on final cement-cement bonds. Twenty-four 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, rods were removed and eight specimens allocated to each of three internal surface preparation groups: 1) burr; 2) OSCAR; or 3) no treatment. Internal holes were re-cemented, then each specimen was cut into 5mm discs. Shear testing of discs was completed by a technician blinded to original grouping (Instron 5567, UK), recording ultimate shear strengths. The mean shear strength for OSCAR-prepared specimens (17 MPa, 99% CI 14.9 to 18.6, SD=4.0) was significantly lower than that measured for the control (23 MPa, 99% CI 22.5 to 23.7, SD=1.4) and burr (23 MPa, 99% CI 22.1 to 23.7, SD=1.9) groups (P<0.001, one-way ANOVA with Tukey's post-hoc analysis). There was no significant difference between control and burr groups (P>0.05). Results show that cement removal technique impacts on final cement-cement bonds. This in vitro study shows a significantly weaker bond when using OSCAR prior to re-cementation into an old cement mantle, compared to cement prepared with a burr or no treatment. These results have implications for surgical practice and decision-making about specific cement removal techniques used during cement-in-cement revision arthroplasty, suggesting that the risks and benefits of ultrasonic cement removal need careful consideration

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 Exeter Hip femoral component remains largely unchanged from the original design, introduced in 1970. It is a highly polished, modular, double tapered stem and has undergone various minor modifications to surface, modularity and most recently the taper; changed to the current V40. TM. design in 2000. The effect of any design modification cannot easily be foreseen and greater emphasis is now placed on ensuring appropriate monitoring for such implants. Methods. We present the results of the first 540 V40. TM. Exeter THAs performed in our Centre between December 2000 and May 2002. All patients were reviewed prospectively at 1, 5 and 10 years following surgery. Results. Ten years after surgery there are no revisions for aseptic loosening and no evidence of aseptic loosening in any hip. The fate of every implant is known and all patients remain under review. One hundred and forty-five patients (26.9%) died before 10 years and of the remaining 395 stems, 374 (94.7%) remain in situ, 11 were revised (2.7%). Three were revised for infection, one for recurrent dislocation and one implant failed at the neck of the prosthesis. Ten were exchanged using cement-in-cement techniques to aid acetabular revision. There were ten periprosthetic fractures: six requiring stem revision, two underwent ORIF and two had already healed by the time the patients presented for follow-up. There was no radiographic evidence of failure preceding the periprosthetic fractures. All radiographs and pain scores were analysed as part of long-term follow-up, and are discussed. Discussion. There were no revisions for aseptic loosening. Previous studies from this centre reviewing the Original and Universal series have demonstrated the stem to provide a predictable and reproducible long term outcome with 100% survival well beyond10 years for aseptic loosening. Conclusion. The polished V40. TM. Exeter stem continues to perform well and survival has remained comparable to the Universal series

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.

Aims

The main aims were to identify risk factors predictive of a radiolucent line (RLL) around the acetabular component with an interface bioactive bone cement (IBBC) technique in the first year after THA, and evaluate whether these risk factors influence the development of RLLs at five and ten years after THA.