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

As the number of patients who have undergone total hip arthroplasty rises, the number of patients who require surgery for a failed total hip arthroplasty is also increasing. Reconstruction of the failed femoral component in revision total hip arthroplasty can be challenging from both a technical perspective and in preoperative planning. With multiple reconstructive options available, it is helpful to have a classification system which guides the surgeon in selecting the appropriate method of reconstruction. We have developed a classification of femoral deficiency and an algorithmic approach to femoral reconstruction is presented. Type I: Minimal loss of metaphyseal cancellous bone with an intact diaphysis. Often seen when conversion of a cementless femoral component without biological ingrowth surface requires revision. Type II: Extensive loss of metaphyseal cancellous bone with an intact diaphysis. Often encountered after the removal of a cemented femoral component. Type IIIA: The metaphysis is severely damaged and non-supportive with more than four centimeters of intact diaphyseal bone for distal fixation. This type of defect is commonly seen after removal of grossly loose femoral components inserted with first generation cementing techniques. Type IIIB: The metaphysis is severely damaged and non-supportive with less than four centimeters of diaphyseal bone available for distal fixation. This type of defect is often seen following failure of a cemented femoral component that was inserted with a cement restrictor and cementless femoral components associated with significant distal osteolysis. Type IV: Extensive meta-diaphyseal damage in conjunction with a widened femoral canal. The isthmus is non-supportive

PFFs are an increasing burden presenting to the acute trauma services. The purpose of this study is to show that cemented revision for Vancouver B2/B3 PFFs is a safe option in the geriatric population, allows early pain-free weight bearing and comparable to a control-group of uncemented stems with regard to return to theatre and revision surgery. A retrospective review was conducted of all PFFs treated in a Level 1 trauma centre from 2015-2020. Follow up x-rays and clinical course through electronic chart was reviewed for 78 cemented revisions and 49 uncemented revisions for PFF. Primary endpoints were all cause revision and return to theatre for any reason. Secondary endpoints recorded mobility status and all-cause mortality. In the cemented group there were 73 Vancouver B2, 5 Vancouver B3 PFF; the mean age was 79.7 years and mean radiological follow-up of 11.9 months. In the cementless group there were 32 Vancouver B2 and 17 Vancouver B3 PFFs; with all 49 patients undergoing distally bearing uncemented revision, the mean age was 72.7 years and mean radiological follow-up of 21.3 months. Patients treated with a cemented prosthesis had significantly higher ASA score (2.94 -v- 2.43, p<0.001). The primary endpoints showed that there was no significant difference in all cause revision 3/78 and 5/49 p=0.077, or return to theatre 13/78 -v- 12/49 p=0.142. Secondary endpoints revealed no significant difference in in-hospital mortality. The cementless group were more likely to be mobilising without any aid at latest follow-up 35/49 -v- 24/78 p<0.001. The use of cemented revision femoral component in the setting of PFFs is one option in the algorithm for management of unstable PFFs according to the Vancouver classification. Evidence from this case-control study, shows that the all-cause revision and return to theatre for any cause was comparable in both groups

As the number of patients who have undergone total hip arthroplasty rises, the number of patients who require surgery for a failed total hip arthroplasty is also increasing. It is estimated that 183,000 total hip replacements were performed in the United States in the year 2000 and that 31,000 of these (17%) were revision procedures. Reconstruction of the failed femoral component in revision total hip arthroplasty can be challenging from a technical perspective and in pre-operative planning. With multiple reconstructive options available, it is helpful to have a classification system which guides the surgeon in selecting the appropriate method of reconstruction. A classification of femoral deficiency has been developed and an algorithmic approach to femoral reconstruction is presented. Type I:. Minimal loss of metaphyseal cancellous bone with an intact diaphysis. Often seen when conversion of a cementless femoral component without biological ingrowth surface requires revision. Type II: Extensive loss of metaphyseal cancellous bone with an intact diaphysis. Often encountered after the removal of a cemented femoral component. Type IIIA: The metaphysis is severely damaged and non-supportive with more than 4cm of intact diaphyseal bone for distal fixation. This type of defect is commonly seen after removal of grossly loose femoral components inserted with first generation cementing techniques. Type IIIB: The metaphysis is severely damaged and non-supportive with less than 4cm of diaphyseal bone available for distal fixation. This type of defect is often seen following failure of a cemented femoral component that was inserted with a cement restrictor and cementless femoral components associated with significant distal osteolysis. Type IV: Extensive meta-diaphyseal damage in conjunction with a widened femoral canal. The isthmus is non-supportive. An extensively coated, diaphyseal filling component reliable achieves successful fixation in the majority of revision femurs. The surgical technique is straightforward and we continue to use this type of device in the majority of our revision total hip arthroplasties. However, in the severely damaged femur (Type IIIB and Type IV), other reconstructive options may provide improved results. Type IIIB:. Based on the poor results obtained with a cylindrical, extensively porous coated implant (with 4 of 8 reconstructions failing), our preference is a modular, cementless, tapered stem with flutes for obtaining rotational stability. Excellent results have been reported with this type of implant and by virtue of its tapered design, excellent initial axial stability can be obtained even in femurs with a very short isthmus. Subsidence has been reported as a potential problem with this type of implant and they can be difficult to insert. However, with the addition of modularity to many systems that employ this concept of fixation, improved stability can be obtained by impaction of the femoral component as far distally as needed while then building up the proximal segment to restore appropriate leg length. Type IV:. The isthmus is completely non-supportive and the femoral canal is widened. Cementless fixation cannot be reliably used in our experience, as it is difficult to obtain adequate initial implant stability that is required for osseointegration. Reconstruction can be performed with impaction grafting if the cortical tube of the proximal femur is intact. However, this technique can be technically difficult to perform, time consuming and costly given the amount of bone graft that is often required. Although implant subsidence and peri-prosthetic fractures (both intra-operatively and post-operatively) have been associated with this technique, it can provide an excellent solution for the difficult revision femur where cementless fixation cannot be utilised. Alternatively, an allograft-prosthesis composite can be utilised for younger patients in an attempt to reconstitute bone stock and a proximal femoral replacing endoprosthesis used for more elderly patients

As the number of patients who have undergone total hip arthroplasty rises, the number of patients who require surgery for a failed total hip arthroplasty is also increasing. Reconstruction of the failed femoral component in revision total hip arthroplasty can be challenging from both a technical perspective and in pre-operative planning. With multiple reconstructive options available, it is helpful to have a classification system which guides the surgeon in selecting the appropriate method of reconstruction. Type I: Minimal loss of metaphyseal cancellous bone with an intact diaphysis. Often seen when conversion of a cementless femoral component without biological ingrowth surface requires revision. Type II: Extensive loss of metaphyseal cancellous bone with an intact diaphysis. Often encountered after the removal of a cemented femoral component. Type IIIA: The metaphysis is severely damaged and non-supportive with more than 4 cm of intact diaphyseal bone for distal fixation. This type of defect is commonly seen after removal of grossly loose femoral components inserted with first generation cementing techniques. Type IIIB: The metaphysis is severely damaged and non-supportive with less than 4 cm of diaphyseal bone available for distal fixation. This type of defect is often seen following failure of a cemented femoral component that was inserted with a cement restrictor and cementless femoral components associated with significant distal osteolysis. Type IV: Extensive meta-diaphyseal damage in conjunction with a widened femoral canal. The isthmus is non-supportive. Based on our results, the following reconstructive algorithm is recommended for femoral reconstruction in revision total hip arthroplasty. An extensively coated, diaphyseal filling component reliably achieves successful fixation in the majority of revision femurs and the surgical technique is straightforward. However, in the severely damaged femur (Type IIIB and Type IV), other reconstructive options may provide improved results. Type I: Cemented or cementless fixation can be utilised. If cemented fixation is selected, great care must be taken in removing the neo-cortex often encountered to allow for appropriate cement intrusion into the remaining cancellous bone. Type II: In this cohort of patients, successful fixation was achieved using a diaphyseal fitting, extensively porous coated implant. However, as the metaphysis is supportive, a cementless implant that achieves primary fixation in the metaphysis can be utilised. Type IIIA: An extensively coated stem of adequate length is utilised to ensure that more than 4 cm of scratch fit is obtained in the diaphysis. Type IIIB: Our present preference is a modular, cementless, tapered stem with flutes for obtaining rotational stability. Type IV: Cementless fixation cannot be reliably used in our experience, as it is difficult to obtain adequate initial implant stability that is required for osseointegration. Reconstruction can be performed with impaction grafting if the cortical tube of the proximal femur is intact. However, this technique can be technically difficult to perform, time consuming and costly given the amount of bone graft that is often required. Although implant subsidence and peri-prosthetic fractures (both intra-operatively and post-operatively) have been associated with this technique, it can provide an excellent solution for the difficult revision femur where cementless fixation cannot be utilised. Alternatively, an allograft-prosthesis composite can be utilised for younger patients in an attempt to reconstitute bone stock and a proximal femoral replacing endoprosthesis used for more elderly patients

Introduction. Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) has been proposed as an implant material for femoral total knee arthroplasty (TKA) components. Potential clinical advantages of PEEK over standard cobalt chrome alloys include modulus of elasticity and subsequently reduced stress shielding potentially eliminating osteolysis, thermal conduction properties allowing for a more natural soft tissue environment, and reduced weight enabling quicker quadriceps recovery. Manufacturing advantages include reduced manufacturing and sterilization time, lower cost, and improved quality control. Currently, no PEEK TKA implants exist on the market. Therefore, evaluation of mechanical properties in a pre-clinical phase is required to minimize patient risk. The objectives of this study include evaluation of implant fixation and determination of the potential for reduced stress shielding using the PEEK femoral TKA component. Methods and Materials. Experimental and computational analysis was performed to evaluate the biomechanical response of the femoral component (Freedom Knee, Maxx Orthopedics Inc., Plymouth Meeting, PA; Figure 1). Fixation strength of CoCr and PEEK components was evaluated in pull-off tests of cemented femoral components on cellular polyurethane foam blocks (Sawbones, Vashon Island, WA). Subsequent testing investigated the cemented fixation using cadaveric distal femurs. The reconstructions were subjected to 500,000 cycles of the peak load occurring during a standardized gait cycle (ISO 14243-1). The change from CoCr to PEEK on implant fixation was studied through computational analysis of stress distributions in the cement, implant, and the cement-implant interface. Reconstructions were analyzed when subjected to standardized gait and demanding squat loads. To investigate potentially reduced stress shielding when using a PEEK component, paired cadaveric femurs were used to measure local bone strains using digital image correlation (DIC). First, standardized gait load was applied, then the left and right femurs were implanted with CoCr and PEEK components, respectively, and subjected to the same load. To verify the validity of the computational methodology, the intact and reconstructed femurs were replicated in FEA models, based on CT scans. Results. The cyclic load phase of the pull-off experiments revealed minimal migration for both CoCr and PEEK components, although after construct sectioning, debonding at the implant-cement interface was observed for the PEEK implants. During pull-off from Sawbones the ultimate failure load of the PEEK and CoCr components averaged 2552N and 3814N respectively. FEA simulations indicated that under more physiological loading, such as walking or squatting, the PEEK component had no increased risk of loss of fixation when compared to the CoCr component. Finally, the DIC experiments and FEA simulations confirmed closer resemblance of pre-operative strain distribution using the PEEK component. Discussion. The biomechanical consequences of changing implant material from CoCr to PEEK on implant fixation was studied using experimental and computational testing of cemented reconstructions. The results indicate that, although changes occur in implant fixation, the PEEK component had a fixation strength comparable to CoCr. The advantage of long term bone preservation, as the more compliant PEEK implant is able to better replicate the physiological loads occurring in the intact femur, may reduce stress shielding around the distal femur, a common clinical cause of TKA failure. For any figures or tables, please contact the authors directly

INTRODUCTION. The Woodpecker pneumatic broaching system facilitates femoral preparation to achieve optimal primary fixation of the stem in direct anterior hip replacement using a standard operating table. The high-frequency axial impulses of the device reduce excess bone tension, intraoperative femoral fractures and overall operating time. The Woodpecker device provides uniformity and enhanced control while broaching, optimizing cortical contact between the femur and implant and thereby maximizing prosthetic axial stability and longevity. This study aims to describe a single surgeon's experience using the Woodpecker pneumatic broaching system in 649 cases of direct anterior approach (DAA) total hip arthroplasties to determine the device's safety and efficacy. METHODOLOGY. All consecutive patients undergoing elective anterior bikini total hip arthroplasties (THA) performed by a single surgeon between July 2013 and June 2018 were included. Patients undergoing a THA with the use of the Woodpecker device through a different surgical approach, revision THA or arthroplasties for a fractured neck of femur were excluded (n=219). The pneumatic device was used for broaching the femoral canal in all cases. Pre-operative and post-operative Harris Hip Scores (HHS) and post-operative radiographs were analyzed to identify femoral fractures and femoral component positioning at 6 weeks, 6 months and 12 months post-operative. Any intra-operative or post-operative surgical complications and component survivorship until most recent follow up were recorded in the clinical notes. RESULTS. A total of 649 patients (L THA=317, R THA=328 and bilateral=2) with a mean age of 69 (range 46–91yrs) and mean BMI of 28.3 (range = 18.4–44.0) underwent a DAA THA using a Woodpecker device were included in the study. Of these patients, 521 (80%) underwent uncemented and 128 (20%) underwent cemented femoral components. The time taken to broach the femur using Woodpecker broaching this system averaged 2.8 minutes (1.4 to 7.5 minutes) in both cemented and uncemented cases. In 91% of cases the templated broach size was achieved with the remaining 9% within +/− 1 size of the planned template. Radiographic analysis revealed 67.3% of the stems placed in 0–1.82 degrees of varus and 32.7% placed in 0–1.4 degrees of valgus. Average HHS were 24.4 pre-operatively, with drastic improvements shown at 6 weeks (80.95), 6 months (91.91) and 12 months (94.18) after surgery. Intraoperative femoral fractures occurred in three patients (0.4%) during trial reduction, a further three patients had periprosthetic post-operative fractures (0.4%) from falls, two patients had stem subsidence (0.3%) and a further two patients had wound infections (0.3%). At the most recent follow up, the survivorship of the acetabular component was 99.7% and the femoral component was 99.1%, with mean follow up of 2.9 years (0.5 to 5 years). No intraoperative or post-operative complications could be directly attributed to the Woodpecker broaching system. CONCLUSION. The pneumatic Woodpecker device is a safe and effective alternative tool in minimally invasive direct anterior hip replacement surgery for femoral broaching performed on a standard operating table. The skill and experience of the surgeon must be taken into consideration when utilizing new surgical devices

In North America, cementless femoral replacement has all but replaced cementing and cement technique is at risk for becoming a lost art. Published results of cemented femoral components with a well-designed femoral component and good surgical technique are excellent and equivalent to cementless technology. With an increasing focus on cost as part of value-based care, consideration for returning to cement for a select population is appropriate. Furthermore, there are patient populations that may benefit from a cemented femur with registries demonstrating superior short term outcomes. These include the elderly and patients with osteoporotic femurs. The goal of femoral cementing is to maximise the interdigitation of bone cement with metaphyseal trabecular bone and the irregular surface of the endosteum while at the same time minimizing the risk of embolization. The steps for femoral cementing include:cFemoral broaching – understand the relationship between the broach and stem as it relates to cement mantle thickness; Canal preparation; Gentle curetting to remove loose cancellous bone; Pressurised lavage to remove fat and marrow elements – this decreases the risk of embolization and enhances the strength of the bone-cement interface; Dry the canal – suction, adrenaline soaked sponge – this minimises bleeding and enhances the strength of the bone cement interface; Cement preparation – vacuum mix or centrifuge the bone cement – this minimise large voids that weaken the bone cement; Cement insertion – insert in a retrograde fashion and pressurise the cement – this optimises the cement column and the bone cement interface; Stem insertion – insert slowly with a system that centralises the stem – this prevents mantle defects that have been associated with stem loosening

Background. The optimal surgical treatment for osteonecrosis of the femoral head has yet to be elucidated. To evaluate the role of femoral fixation techniques in hip resurfacing, we present a comparison of the results for two consecutive groups: Group 1 (75 hips) received hybrid hip resurfacing implants with a cemented femoral component; Group 2 (103 hips) received uncemented femoral components. Both groups received uncemented acetabular components. Methods. We retrospectively analyzed our clinical database to compare failures, reoperations, complications, clinical results, metal ion test results, and x-ray measurements. Using consecutive groups caused time interval bias, so we required all Group 2 patients be at least two years out from surgery; we compared results from two years and final follow-up. Results. Patient groups matched similarly in age, BMI, and percent female. Despite similar demographics, the uncemented, Group 2 cases showed a lower raw failure rate (0% vs. 16% p<0.0001), a lower 2-year failure rate (0% vs. 7%, p=0.04), and a superior 8-year implant survivorship (100% vs. 91%, log-rank p=0.0028, Wilcoxon p=0.0026). In cases that did not fail, patient clinical (p=0.05), activity (p=0.02), and pain scores (p=0.03), as well as acetabular component position (p<0.0001), all improved in Group 2, suggesting advancements in surgical management. There were no cases of adverse wear related failure in either group. Conclusions. This study demonstrates a superior outcome for cases of osteonecrosis with uncemented hip resurfacings compared to cases employing hybrid devices

Although the vast majority of fractures of the proximal femur will heal with well-done internal fixation, occasionally failure of fixation will occur. Having effective salvage options is important to restore function and minimise complications. In general, it is logical to separate salvage options into those for fractures of the femoral neck, and those for fractures of the intertrochanteric region. Additionally, patient age and remaining bone stock should be considered. Femoral neck fracture fixation failure salvage, young patients: All efforts are focused on preserving the native femoral neck. Valgus producing osteotomy is typically indicated, and can be successful even with small patches of AVN. Femoral neck fracture fixation failure salvage, older patients: Total hip arthroplasty is generally most predictable. Be prepared for very poor bone quality. Supplement uncemented acetabular component with multiple screws. Be prepared to cement femoral component, if necessary. Intertrochanteric fracture fixation failure salvage, young patients: Repeat internal fixation attempts with fixed angle devices (such as a 95-degree blade plate) and bone grafting generally preferred. Avoid varus of proximal fragment and target inferior femoral head bone. Intertrochanteric fracture fixation failure salvage, older patients: Total hip arthroplasty preferred. Long stems to bypass femoral shaft stress risers and “calcar replacement” stems may be necessary due to proximal bone defects. Trochanteric fixation must be stable. Results are generally good but trochanteric complaints are common

Purpose of study. To investigate possible advantages of uncemented over cemented femoral components in hip resurfacing. Methods. Eighty-seven patients were recruited. Perioperative factors determined cemented or uncemented head utilisation. Minimum follow-up was 24 months. Surgical complications, HHS, periprosthetic radiolucence and femoral neck narrowing were measured. Results. 55 cemented vs. 32 uncemented resurfacings. Cemented group complications: one DVT, one fractured neck of femur. Two patients from this group had periprosthetic radiolucent lines and there was evidence of significant progressive neck narrowing in this group. The uncemented cohort had no complications. Conclusions. There is less femoral neck narrowing in hip resurfacing using uncemented femoral prostheses

Periprosthetic femoral fractures are becoming increasingly common and are a major complication of total hip arthroplasty (THA) and bipolar hemiarthroplasty (BHA). We report a retrospective review of the outcomes of treatment of 11 periprosthetic fractures after femoral revision using a long stem. Eleven female patients with a mean age of 79.2 years (70 to 91 years) were treated for a Vancouver type B1 fracture between 1998 and 2013. The status of the initial arthroplasty was THA in 5 patients and BHA in 6 patients. The original diagnosis was femoral neck fracture in 5 patients, osteoarthritis in 5 patients, and avascular necrosis of femoral head in 1 patient. Seven patients had had a cemented femoral component and 4 had had a cementless femoral component. The mean numbers of previous surgeries were 3.2 times (2 to 5 times). A previous history of fracture in the same femur was found in 7 hips including 5 femoral neck fractures, 3 periprosthetic fractures. The cause of the latest revision surgery was aseptic loosening in 6 hips, periprosthetic fracture in 3 hips, and infection in 2 hips. The average time to fracture after femoral revision using a long stem was 106.5 months (12 to 240 months). The average follow-up was 58.9 months (8 to 180 months). The fracture pattern was a transverse fracture in 6 hips and an oblique fracture in 5 hips. The type B1 fractures were treated with open reduction and internal fixation in 9 hips, 6 of which were reinforced with bone grafts. Seven patients were treated with a locking compression plate and cerclage wiring, and 2 patients were treated with a Dall-Miles system. Two other periprosthetic fractures were treated with femoral revision. One was revised because of stem breakage, and the other was a transverse fracture associated with very poor bone quality, which received a femoral revision with a long stem and a locking compression plate. All fractures except one achieved primary union. This failed case had a bone defect at the fracture site, and revision surgery using a cementless long stem and allografts was successful. These finding suggest that a type B1 fracture after revision using a long stem associated with very poor bone quality or bone loss might be considered as a type B3 fracture, and femoral revision might be the treatment of choice

Although the vast majority of fractures of the proximal femur will heal with well-done internal fixation, occasionally failure of fixation will occur. Having effective salvage options is important to restore function and minimise complications. In general, it is logical to separate salvage options into those for fractures of the femoral neck, and those for fractures of the intertrochanteric region. Additionally, patient age and remaining bone stock should be considered. Femoral neck fracture fixation failure salvage, young patients: All efforts are focused on preserving the native femoral neck. Valgus producing osteotomy is typically indicated, and can be successful even with small patches of AVN. Femoral neck fracture fixation failure salvage, older patients: Total hip arthroplasty is generally most predictable. Be prepared for very poor bone quality. Supplement uncemented acetabular component with multiple screws. Be prepared to cement femoral component, if necessary. Intertrochanteric fracture fixation failure salvage, young patients: Repeat internal fixation attempts with fixed angle devices (such as a 95 degree blade plate) and bone grafting generally preferred. Avoid varus of proximal fragment and target inferior femoral head bone. Intertrochanteric fracture fixation failure salvage, older patients: Total hip arthroplasty preferred. Long stems to bypass femoral shaft stress risers and “calcar replacement” stems may be necessary due to proximal bone defects. Trochanteric fixation must be stable. Results are generally good but trochanteric complaints are common

Introduction. The French paradox regarding cemented femoral components has not been resolved, so we compared the mechanical behavior of a French stem, the CMK stem (Biomet, Warsaw, IN, USA), with a collarless, polished, tapered stem (CPT, Zimmer, Warsaw, IN, USA) using an original biomechanical instrument. Materials and Methods. Two size-3 CPT stems and two size-302 CMK stems stems were fixed with bone cement into a composite femur soaked in vegetable oil to simulate wet condition. The composite femur was attached to a biomechanical testing instrument after stem implantation, and a 1-Hz dynamic sine wave load (3000 N) was applied to the stems for a total of 1 million cycles. An 8-hour unload period was set after every 16 hours of load. Femur temperature was maintained at 37°C during testing. The femoral canal was prepared for the CPT stems by standard rasping; for the CMK stems, however, the French method was used, in which cancellous bone was removed with a reamer. One CMK stem (CMK-1) was inserted into a femur without collar contact (>2 mm above the calcar), and the other (CMK-2) was inserted into a femur with collar contact. Stem subsidence was measured at the stem shoulder. Compressive force and horizontal cement movement were measured via rods set at the cement–bone interface on the medial, lateral, anterior, and posterior sides of the proximal and distal portions of the composite femurs. Results. Subsidence was as follows: 0.521 mm and 0.629 mm for the CPT stems, 0.46 mm for CMK-1, and 0.36 mm for CMK-2. Compressive force at the cement–bone interface was at the maximum level at the proximomedial portion of all stems. These forces increased gradually until the one-millionth loading. Maximum compressive forces were 183 N and 107 N for the CPT stems, 180 N for CMK-1, and 215 N for CMK-2. There was a strong positive correlation between stem subsidence and compressive force in all stems. Radial cement creep at the proximomedial portion was 90 μ for one of the CPT stems, 184 μ for CMK-1, and −636 μ for CMK-2. Discussion. We previously reported our findings of a positive correlation between stem subsidence and compressive force in CPT stems. In the current study, CMK stems also subsided even when there was stem collar contact with bone. Subsidence was less in CMK stems than in CPT stems, but the values were close. In addition, compressive force and radial cement creep in CMK stems were also similar to or greater than in CPT stems. Conclusion. The two different concept stems demonstrated similar behavior in relation to bone cement, a finding that may present a solution to the French paradox

The first rule in properly cementing a femoral component is obtaining adequate exposure of the proximal femur. This is achieved reproducibly in anterior approach surgery with anterior and superior capsulotomy, combined with release of the conjoined tendon from the inner trochanter and piriformis tendon retraction, or flip behind the trochanter. This will be demonstrated. The steps of cementation are well established, and not specific to one approach. They involve entry to the proximal femur in a lateral and posterior position, achieving central alignment within the proximal femur with the broach, application of a cement restrictor to a point 1.5 to 2cm distal to the proposed tip of the implant, appropriate preparation of the cancellous bone to receive the cement, applying cement in a sufficiently doughy state to be able to achieve penetration into the cancellous bone, and mechanical pressurization into that cancellous bone. We routinely apply cement directly to the proximal aspect of the femoral component as the cement sticks to the metal, preventing marrow contents generated during the insertion from contacting the metal. In discussing the factors contributing to a dry surgical field, the importance of relative hypotension achieved from regional anesthesia cannot be overstated

Although the vast majority of fractures of the proximal femur will heal with well-done internal fixation, occasionally failure of fixation will occur. Having effective salvage options is important to restore function and minimize complications. In general, it is logical to separate salvage options into those for fractures of the femoral neck, and those for fractures of the intertrochanteric region. Additionally, patient age and remaining bone stock should be considered. Femoral neck fracture fixation failure salvage, young patients: All efforts are focused on preserving the native femoral neck. Valgus producing osteotomy is typically indicated, and can be successful even with small patches of AVN. Femoral neck fracture fixation failure salvage, older patients: Total hip arthroplasty is generally most predictable. Be prepared for very poor bone quality. Supplement uncemented acetabular component with multiple screws. Be prepared to cement femoral component if necessary. Intertrochanteric fracture fixation failure salvage, young patients: Repeat internal fixation attempts with fixed angle devices (such as a 95 degree blade plate) and bone grafting generally preferred. Avoid varus of proximal fragment and target inferior femoral head bone. Intertrochanteric fracture fixation failure salvage, older patients: Total hip arthroplasty preferred. Long stems to bypass femoral shaft stress risers and “calcar replacement” stems may be necessary due to proximal bone defects. Trochanteric fixation must be stable. Results are generally good but trochanteric complaints are common

Young patients have been reported to have a higher risk of revision following total hip arthroplasty than older cohorts. This was attributed to the higher activity level which led to increased wear, osteolysis, and component fracture. We prospectively assessed the clinical results, wear and osteolysis, the incidence of squeaking, and the survivorship of ceramic on ceramic THA in patients younger than 50 years (mean age of 42 [18–50] years). The series included 425 THAs in 370 patients with 368 hips followed for a minimum of 2 years (mean 7.1 years, range 2–14 years). All patients received uncemented acetabular components with flush-mounted acetabular liners using an 18 degree taper. No osteolysis was observed in any uncemented construct. There was osteolysis around one loose cemented femoral component. The survivorship for reoperation for implant revision was 96.7%. There were only two acetabular liner fractures (0.47%) and one femoral head fracture (0.24%). Two of the three fractures involved a fall from a significant height. There were no hip dislocations. Five patients (1.17%) noted rare or occasional squeaking. None had reproducible squeaking. In summary, the current study shows that ceramic-on-ceramic THAs in the young patient population are extremely reliable with a very low revision rate and an absence of wear-induced osteolysis. In addition, it shows that both bearing fracture in this young patient population typically occurs with polytrauma and squeaking issues that have been raised relative to ceramic bearings occur very rarely with the flush-mounted ceramic liner design used in this study

We used a laser Doppler flow-meter with high energy (20 m W) laser (Moor Instruments Ltd. Milwey, UK) to measure the blood flow to the femoral head during resurfacing arthroplasty. Twenty-four hips were studied; 12 underwent a posterior approach and twelve a Ganz's trochanteric flip osteotomy. The approach was determined according to surgeon preference. Three patients were excluded, The exclusion criteria were previous hip surgery, history of hip fracture and avascular necrosis (AVN). All patients had the hybrid implant with cemented femoral component. During surgery a 2.0mm drill bit was passed via the lateral femoral cortex to the superior part of the head neck junction. The position was confirmed using fluoroscopy. The measurements were taken during five stages of the operation: when the fascia lata was opened (baseline), at the end of soft tissue dissection, following dislocation of the hip, after relocation back into the socket, after inserting the implants prior to closing the soft tissues and, finally, at the end of soft tissue closure. The results were analysed and the values were normalised to a percentage of the baseline value. We found a mean drop of 38.6 % in the blood flow during the posterior approach and a drop of 10.34% with the trochanteric flip approach. The significant drop occured between the baseline (1st stage) and the end of the soft-tissue dissection (2nd stage). In both groups the blood flow remained relatively constant afterwards. Our study shows that there is a highly significant drop in blood flow (p<0.001) during the posterior approach compared with the trochanteric flip approach

Introduction:. Cemented femoral components have been used in hip replacement surgery since its inception. For many patients this works well, but recent retrieval studies. 1–4. and more fundamental studies. 5, 6. have highlighted the issues of damage and material loss from the both matt and polished cemented stems. Materials and methods:. This study will focus on a cohort of retrievals from the Southampton Orthopaedics Centre for Arthroplasty Retrieval Surgery (SOCARS). The cohort consisted of a number of hybrid modular total hip replacements with cemented femoral components, both from mixed and matched manufacturer stem and head combinations. Femoral stems were polished, collarless, tapered designs; head sizes ranged from 28–54 mm. For each femoral stem, samples of Palacos R + G cement (Heraeus Medical GmbH, Hanau, Germany) were retrieved from the proximal region of the cement mantle (Gruen zones 1 and 7), corresponding to both macroscopically damaged and undamaged surfaces of the stem. The areas of damage were determined using calibrated digital photography; damaged surfaces were then imaged in detail using an Alicona InfiniteFocus microscope (Alicona Imaging GmbH, Graz, Austria). The technique uses optical microscopy and focus variation technology to extract 3D morphology and depth information from the surface with a resolution of 10 nm. A series of measurements were made and two different analysis routes were used to provide volumetric material loss measurements from the stem surface. High-resolution microscopy and elemental analysis of the cement and stem surfaces was conducted via SEM and EDX to identify the mechanisms leading to material loss at the cement-stem interface. Results:. The results demonstrate that material loss from polished femoral stems results from a progressive tribocorrosion process; the major damage mechanism is thought to be the micro-motion between the femoral stem surface and zirconium dioxide radiopacifier agglomerates originating from the cement. No significant link was found between the extent of damage to the femoral stem and either the head size or the amount of wear occurring at the head-cup bearing surface. The scale of stem damage varied between implants but often exceeded the volumetric material loss measured at the bearing surfaces. Conclusions:. Tribo-corrosive damage to the femoral stems of cemented total hip prostheses is a major potential source of material loss in vivo; in severely affected arthroplasties, measurements of volumetric wear of the stem at the cement-stem interface were greater than at either the head-cup bearing surface or the taper junction. The mechanism of material loss in this study was identified as a wear-dominated tribocorrosion interaction between the cement and stem, with zirconium dioxide radiopacifier agglomerates within the cement providing the hard particles which damaged the surface of cobalt-chrome femoral stems