The removal of all prosthetic material and a two-stage revision procedure is the established standard management of an infected total hip replacement (THR). However, the removal of well-fixed femoral cement is time-consuming and can result in significant loss of bone stock and femoral shaft perforation or fracture. We report our results of two-stage revision THR for treating infection, with retention of the original well-fixed femoral cement mantle in 15 patients, who were treated between 1989 and 2002. Following partial excision arthroplasty, patients received local and systemic antibiotics and underwent reconstruction and re-implantation at a second-stage procedure, when the infection had resolved. The mean follow-up of these 15 patients was 82 months (60 to 192). Two patients had positive microbiology at the second stage and were treated with six weeks of appropriate antibiotics; one of these developed recurrent infection requiring further revision. Successful eradication of infection was achieved in the remaining 14 patients. We conclude that when two-stage revision is used for the treatment of peri-prosthetic infection involving a THR, a well-fixed femoral cement mantle can be safely left in situ, without compromising the treatment of infection. Advantages of this technique include a shorter operating time, reduced loss of bone stock and a technically more straightforward second-stage procedure

Although cement in cement acetabular revision is a recognised option in the presence of a well-fixed cement mantle, partial cement mantle retention is not normally recommended or practiced. However, when revising a cemented acetabular cup it is not infrequent to be faced with loose superolateral cement but well-fixed medial cement. Removal of the well-fixed cement can be time consuming and destructive. An alternative would be to retain this cement and incorporate it into the reconstruction. This study assesses the practice and results of partial cement mantle retention (PCR) at acetabular revision. We retrospectively identified a cohort of 28 hips in 26 patients using the PCR technique from 1. st. January 2000 to 1. st. January 2013. This represented 3.3% of cup revisions where a cemented cup was used. The area of cement loss was reconstructed in one of three ways: re-cementing into drill holes (6 cases); impaction grafting of the defect (8 cases); or use of a trabecular metal wedge (14 cases). 24 hips had a minimum 2-year follow up (mean 6 years). There were no subsequent revisions for aseptic loosening. One acetabulum was later revised for dislocation and X-rays were lost in one patient leaving 22 patients with x-ray available and retained implants. Two of these cases showed progression of lucent lines, which were not clinically significant. Retaining well-fixed medial cement during socket revision appears to be a reasonable reconstruction option in carefully selected cases

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

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

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

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

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

Aims

The aim of this study was to compare open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with revision surgery for the surgical management of Unified Classification System (UCS) type B periprosthetic femoral fractures around cemented polished taper-slip femoral components following primary total hip arthroplasty (THA).

Aims

We aimed to compare the implant survival, complications, readmissions, and mortality of Vancouver B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs) treated with internal fixation with that of B1 PFFs treated with internal fixation and B2 fractures treated with revision arthroplasty.

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. Periprosthetic fractures (PPFs) around cemented taper-slip femoral prostheses often result in a femoral component that is loose at the prosthesis-cement interface, but where the cement-bone interface remains well-fixed and bone stock is good. We aim to understand how best to classify and manage these fractures by using a modification of the Vancouver classification. Methods. We reviewed 87 PPFs. Each was a first episode of fracture around a cemented femoral component, where surgical management consisted of revision surgery. Data regarding initial injury, intraoperative findings, and management were prospectively collected. Patient records and serial radiographs were reviewed to determine fracture classification, whether the bone cement was well fixed (B2W) or loose (B2L), and time to fracture union following treatment. Results. In total, 47 B2W fractures (54.0%) and one B3 fracture (1.1%) had cement that remained well-fixed at the cement-bone interface. These cases were treated with cement-in-cement (CinC) revision arthroplasty. Overall, 43 fractures with follow-up united, and two patients sustained further fractures secondary to nonunion and required further revision surgery. A total of 19 B2L fractures (21.8%) and 19 B3 fractures (21.8%) had cement that was loose at the cement-bone interface. These cases were managed by revision arthroplasty with either cemented or uncemented femoral components, or proximal femoral arthroplasty. One case could not be classified. Conclusion. We endorse a modification of the original Vancouver system to include a subclassification of B2 fractures around cemented femoral prostheses to include B2W (where cement is well-fixed to bone) and B2L (where the cement is loose). Fractures around taper-slip design stems are more likely to fracture in a B2W pattern compared to fractures around composite beam design stems which are more likely to fracture in a B2L pattern. B2W fractures can reliably be managed with CinC revision. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(1):71–78

Aims

In the 1990s, a bioactive bone cement (BABC) containing apatite-wollastonite glass-ceramic (AW-GC) powder and bisphenol-a-glycidyl methacrylate resin was developed at our hospital. In 1996, we used BABC to fix the acetabular component in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) in 20 patients as part of a clinical trial. The purpose of this study was to investigate the long-term results of primary THA using BABC.

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).

Aims

Periprosthetic fracture (PF) after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) is an uncommon but potentially devastating complication. This study aims to investigate the influence of cemented stem designs on the risk of needing a revision for a PF.

An 81-year-old woman presented with a fracture in the left femur. She had well-fixed bilateral hip replacements and had received long-term bisphosphonate treatment. Prolonged bisphosphonate use has been recently linked with atypical subtrochanteric and diaphyseal femoral fractures. While the current definition of an atypical fracture of the femur excludes peri-prosthetic fractures, this case suggests that they do occur and should be considered in patients with severe osteopenia. Union of the fracture followed cessation of bisphosphonates and treatment with teriparatide. Thus, this case calls into question whether prophylactic intramedullary nailing is sufficient alone to treat early or completed atypical femoral fractures.

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.

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.

We are currently facing an epidemic of periprosthetic fractures around the hip. They may occur either during surgery or post-operatively. Although the acetabulum may be involved, the femur is most commonly affected. We are being presented with new, difficult fracture patterns around cemented and cementless implants, and we face the challenge of an elderly population who may have grossly deficient bone and may struggle to rehabilitate after such injuries. The correct surgical management of these fractures is challenging. This article will review the current choices of implants and techniques available to deal with periprosthetic fractures of the femur.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B(11 Suppl A):48–55.

In 2005, we demonstrated that the polished triple-tapered C-stem at two years had migrated distally and rotated internally. From that series, 33 patients have now been followed radiologically, clinically and by radiostereometric analysis (RSA) for up to ten years. The distal migration within the cement mantle had continued and reached a mean of 2 mm (0.5 to 4.0) at ten years. Internal rotation, also within the cement mantle, was a mean 3.8° (external 1.6° to internal 6.6°) The cement mantle did not show any sign of migration or loosening in relation to the femoral bone. There were no clinical or radiological signs indicating that the migration or rotation within the cement mantle had had any adverse effects for the patients.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:604–8.

Two-stage exchange remains the gold standard for treatment of peri-prosthetic joint infection after total hip replacement (THR). In the first stage, all components and associated cement if present are removed, an aggressive debridement is undertaken including a complete synovectomy, and an antibiotic-loaded cement spacer is put in place. Patients are then treated with six weeks of parenteral antibiotics, followed by an ‘antibiotic free period’ to help ensure the infection has been eradicated. If the clinical evaluation and serum inflammatory markers suggest the infection has resolved, then the second stage can be completed, which involves removal of the cement spacer, repeat debridement, and placement of a new THR.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B, Supple A:84–7.