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

Introduction. Despite evidence of long term survival of cemented femoral stem prostheses, studies have shown concerns in the longevity of the cemented sockets. This has led to a rise in the use of uncemented and hybrid implants (with uncemented cup and cemented stem) without long term studies to determine evidence for their use. We aimed to assess whether there is any difference in clinical outcome between cemented and non-cemented acetabular fixation in elderly patients. Patients and Methods. Between February 2001 and August 2006 186 patients over 72 years of age were prospectively randomised to receive either a cemented Exeter cup or a HA coated press fit cementless cup. Both groups received a cemented Exeter stem. The patients were assessed pre-operatively and reviewed at 6 weeks, 6 months and yearly in a research clinic, by an independent observer. Outcome measures were the Merle D'Aubigné, Postel, Oxford Hip and Visual analogue pain scores. The implants were also assessed radiographically and all complications were recorded. Results. During the trial 97 patients (mean age 79.13, range 72-90) were randomised to receive a cemented cup (60 right: 37 left) and 89 (mean age 77.65, range 72-95) an uncemented ABG II cup. There was a mean follow-up of 57.6 months (max 9 years) . Statistically there was no significant difference between the two methods of acetabular fixation in outcome measures but radiologically there was a significant difference in wear and loosening (p< 0.001) with cemented cups wearing at a mean of 0.35mm/yr and uncemented cups 0.08mm/yr. Conclusion. Both methods of fixation were demonstrated to have a good outcome with low complication rates. There would appear to be a significant difference in wear rate and osteolysis in this age group between the methods of fixation up to 9 years

The clinical results of the cemented Exeter stem in primary hip surgery have been excellent. The Exeter ‘philosophy’ has also been extended into the treatment of displaced intracapsular hip fractures with ‘cemented bipolars’ and the Exeter Trauma Stem (Howmedica). We have identified an increase in the number of periprosthetic fractures that we see around the Exeter stem. We have also identified a particular group of patients with comminuted fractures around ‘well fixed’ Exeter stems after primary hip surgery that present a particular difficult clinical problem. Prior to fracture, the stems are not loose, the cement mantle remains sound and bone quality surrounding the reconstruction is good, i.e. classifying it as a Vancouver B1. However the comminuted nature of the fracture makes reduction and fixation with traditional methods difficult. Therefore in these particular circumstances it is often better to manage these as B2 or even B3 fractures, with distal bypass and uncemented reconstruction. Over an eleven-year period since 1999, 185 patients have been admitted to Nottingham University Hospitals with a periprosthetic femoral fracture around a hip replacement. These patients were identified from a prospective database of all trauma patients admitted to the institution. Of these patients we have identified a cohort of 21 patients (11%) with a periprosthetic fracture around an Exeter polished stem. Hospital notes were independently reviewed and data retrieved. Outcome data was collected with end points of fracture union, re-revision surgery and death. Data was also collected on immediate and long term post-operative complications. The mean age was 76 years at time of fracture, and 52% were male. The mean duration between primary index surgery and fracture was 18 months (median 11 months). 15 patients were classified as Vancouver B1, and six as B2 fractures. Of the B1 fractures, 14 underwent fixation and one was treated non-operatively. Of the B2 fractures, four were revised, one was revised and fixed using a plate, and one was fixed using a double-plating technique. Prior to fracture, none of the implants were deemed loose although one patient was under review of a stress fracture which subsequently displaced. One patient died prior to fracture union. All the other patients subsequently went onto unite at a mean of 4 months. There were no deep infections, non- or malunions. No patient underwent further surgery. Dislocation occurred in one patient and a superficial wound infection occurred in one patient which responded to antibiotic treatment. Three other patients have subsequently died at seven, twelve and fifty-three months post fracture due to unrelated causes. In our series of patients, in addition to the more standard fracture patterns, we have identified a very much more comminuted fracture. Indeed, we have described the appearance as if the tapered stem behaves like an axe, splitting the proximal femur as a consequence of a direct axial load. As a consequence of the injury, the cement mantle itself is severely disrupted. There is significant comminution and soft tissue stripping, calling into question the viability of the residual fragments. Treatment of this type of fracture using a combination of plates, screws and cables is unlikely to provide a sufficiently sound reconstruction. In our experience we believe these fractures around previously ‘well fixed’ Exeter stems should be treated as B2/B3 injuries

Clinical, haematological or economic benefits of post-operative blood salvage with autologous blood re-transfusion have yet to be clearly demonstrated for primary total hip replacement. We performed a prospective randomised study to analyse differences in postoperative haemoglobin levels and homologous blood requirements in two groups of patients undergoing primary total hip replacement.

A series of 158 patients was studied. In one group two vacuum drains were used and in the other the ABTrans autologous retransfusion system. A total of 58 patients (76%) in the re-transfusion group received autologous blood. There was no significant difference in the mean post-operative haemoglobin levels in the two groups. There were, however, significantly fewer patients with post-operative haemoglobin values less than 9.0 g/dl and significantly fewer patients who required transfusion of homologous blood in the re-transfusion group. There was also a small overall cost saving in this group.