Aims. The aim of this study was to determine both the incidence of, and the reoperation rate for, postoperative periprosthetic femoral fracture (POPFF) after total hip arthroplasty (THA) with either a collared cementless (CC) femoral component or a cemented polished
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
Aims. Periprosthetic fractures (PPFs) around cemented
Aims. This aim of this study was to assess the reliability and validity of the Unified Classification System (UCS) for postoperative periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs) around cemented polished
Aims. The Exeter femoral stem has a cemented, polished
A: - determine the incidence of intraoperative periprosthetic femoral fracture (PFF) B: - determine the incidence of, and the reoperation rate for postoperative PFF When using either CC or PTS femoral components. Retrospective review of a consecutive series of 11,018 THAs over a ten-year period. All PFFs were identified using regional radiograph archiving and electronic care systems. Of the 11,018 THAs 4,952 were CC and 6,066 were PTS. Between groups, age, sex, and BMI did not differ. A: - 55 (0.5%) had an intraoperative PFF. 44 CC and 11 PTS (p<0.001). 3 patients in each group had a femoral shaft fracture, remaining fractures were either the calcar (20 CC and 2 group) or the greater trochanter (11 CC and 6 PTS). B: - 91(0.8%) sustained a postoperative PFF. Of those 15 were managed conservatively, 15 were revised and 61 (80.3%) had an ORIF. The CC group had both a lower overall rate of postoperative PFFs (0.7% (36/4,952) vs 0.9% (55/6,066); p = 0.341), and a lower rate of return to theatre (0.4% (22/4,952) vs 0.9% (54/6,066); p = 0.005). 1.3% of male PTS (36/2,674) had a reoperation compared to 0.3% of male CC (7/2,121) (p<0.001). With regard to stem fracture there were none in the Corail group and 5 in the Exeter group. Of these 2 were sub trunnion and 3 were basal neck. A: - There were significantly more intraoperative PFFs with CC 44 (0.8%) than PTS 11 (0.2%). However, the majority of fractures were either of the calcar or greater trochanter with no impact on early recovery or one year Oxford scores. B: - Male PTS were five times more likely to have a reoperation for postoperative PFF. Females had the same incidence of reoperation with either component type. There were 5 stem fractures in the Exeter group and none in the Corail. These results represent robust estimates, which are likely to be more accurate than revision only studies typically generated from registry data.
Aims
Patients and Methods
Standard practice in revision total hip replacement (THR) for periprosthetic fracture (PPF) is to remove all cement from the femoral canal prior to implantation of a new component. This can make the procedure time consuming and complex. Since 1991 it has been our practice to preserve the old femoral cement where it remains well fixed to bone, even if the cement mantle is fractured, and to cement a new component into the old mantle. We have reviewed the data of 48 consecutive patients, treated at our unit between 1991 and 2009, with a first PPF around a cemented primary THR stem where a cement in cement revision was performed. 8 hips were revised to a standard length stem, 39 hips to a long stem & 1 patient had the same stem reinserted. All fractures were reduced and held with cerclage wires or cables and four had supplementary plate fixation. Full clinical and radiographic follow up was available in 38 patients & clinical or radiographic follow up in a further 6 patients. The other 4 patients. without follow up but whose outcome is known, have suffered no complications and are pain free. Of the remaining 44 patients, forty-two went on to union of the fracture and two have required further surgery for non-union. One patient has ongoing undiagnosed hip pain. Our long term experience with cement in cement revision for periprosthetic femoral fractures shows that this is a viable technique with a low complication rate and high rate of union (95%) in what is generally regarded as a very difficult condition to treat.
Varus positioning of cemented ‘composite beam’ stems is associated with increased risks of aseptic loosening and stem fracture. We investigated whether the incidence of varus malalignment of the Exeter polished, double taper design in a multicentre prospective study adversely affected outcome after total hip replacement (THR). A multicentre prospective study of 1189 THR was undertaken to investigate whether there is an association between surgical outcome and femoral stem malalignment. The primary outcome measure was the change in the Oxford hip score (OHS) at five years. Secondary outcomes included the rate of dislocation and revision, stem subsidence, quality of cementing. 938 (79.89%) were followed-up at five years.Introduction
Materials & Methods
One of the drawbacks of cemented total hip arthroplasty (THA) is aseptic loosening after long period, major reason for which is bioinertness of PMMA bone cement. To improve longevity of THA, interface bioactive bone cement (IBBC) technique which is characterized with smearing hydroxyapatite (HA) granules just before cementation has been used in our institute. Smooth-surfaced triple-tapered Titanium-alloy stem (T) and Exeter stem (E) have been used consecutively in the different period. Objective of the present study was thoroughly comparing two stems clinically and radiologically.Purpose
Objective
Polished
Aims. This study evaluates risk factors influencing fracture characteristics for postoperative periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs) around cemented stems in total hip arthroplasty. Methods. Data were collected for PFF patients admitted to eight UK centres between 25 May 2006 and 1 March 2020. Radiographs were assessed for Unified Classification System (UCS) grade and AO/OTA type. Statistical comparisons investigated relationships by age, gender, and stem fixation philosophy (polished
Aims. Cement-in-cement revision of the femoral component represents a widely practised technique for a variety of indications in revision total hip arthroplasty. In this study, we compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of two polished tapered femoral components. Methods. From our prospectively collated database, we identified all patients undergoing cement-in-cement revision from January 2005 to January 2013 who had a minimum of two years' follow-up. All cases were performed by the senior author using either an Exeter short revision stem or the C-Stem AMT high offset No. 1 prosthesis. Patients were followed-up annually with clinical and radiological assessment. Results. A total of 97 patients matched the inclusion criteria (50 Exeter and 47 C-Stem AMT components). There were no significant differences between the patient demographic data in either group. Mean follow-up was 9.7 years. A significant improvement in Oxford Hip Score (OHS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and 12-item Short-Form Survey (SF-12) scores was observed in both cohorts. Leg lengths were significantly shorter in the Exeter group, with a mean of -4 mm in this cohort compared with 0 mm in the C-Stem AMT group. One patient in the Exeter group had early evidence of radiological loosening. In total, 16 patients (15%) underwent further revision of the femoral component (seven in the C-Stem AMT group and nine in the Exeter group). No femoral components were revised for aseptic loosening. There were two cases of femoral component fracture in the Exeter group. Conclusion. Our series shows promising mid-term outcomes for the cement-in-cement revision technique using either the Exeter or C-Stem AMT components. These results demonstrate that cement-in-cement revision using a double or triple
Aims. The aim of this study was to radiologically evaluate the quality of cement mantle and alignment achieved with a polished tapered cemented femoral stem inserted through the anterior approach and compared with the posterior approach. Methods. A comparative retrospective study of 115 consecutive hybrid total hip arthroplasties or cemented hemiarthroplasties in 110 patients, performed through anterior (n = 58) or posterior approach (n = 57) using a collarless polished
Cement-in-cement revision of the femoral component represents a widely practiced technique for a variety of indications. In this study we compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of two polished tapered stems. From our prospectively collated database we identified all patients undergoing cement-in-cement revision from January 2005 – 2013 who had a minimum of two years follow-up. All cases were performed by the senior author using either an Exeter short revision stem or the C-stem AMT high offset No 1. Patients were followed-up annually with clinical and radiological assessment. Ninety-seven patients matched the inclusion criteria. There were 50 Exeter and 47 C-stem AMT components. There were no significant differences between the patient demographics in either group. Mean follow-up was 9.7 years. A significant improvement in OHS, WOMAC and SF-12 scores was observed in both cohorts. Leg lengths were significantly shorter in the Exeter group, with a mean of -4mm in this cohort compared to 0mm in the C-stem AMT group. One patient in the Exeter group had early evidence of radiological loosening. In total, 16 patients (15%) underwent further revision of the femoral component (seven in the C-stem AMT group and nine in the Exeter group). No femoral components were revised for aseptic loosening. There were two cases of femoral component fracture in the Exeter group. Our series shows promising long-term outcomes for the cement-in-cement revision technique using either the Exeter or C-stem AMT components. These results demonstrate that cement-in-cement revision using a double or triple
Cemented total hip replacement (THR) provides excellent outcomes and is cost-effective. Polished
The aim of this study was to describe services available to patients with periprosthetic femoral fracture (PPFF) in England and Wales, with focus on variation between centres and areas for care improvement. This work used data freely available from the National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) facilities survey in 2021, which asked 21 questions about the care of patients with PPFFs, and nine relating to clinical decision-making around a hypothetical case.Aims
Methods
The Unified Classification System (UCS), or Vancouver system, is a validated and widely used classification system to guide the management of periprosthetic femoral fractures. It suggests that well-fixed stems (type B1) can be treated with fixation but that loose stems (types B2 and B3) should be revised. Determining whether a stem is loose can be difficult and some authors have questioned how to apply this classification system to polished taper slip stems which are, by definition, loose within their cement mantle. Recent evidence has challenged the common perception that revision surgery is preferable to fixation surgery for UCS-B periprosthetic fractures around cemented polished taper slip stems. Indications for fixation include an anatomically reducible fracture and cement mantle, a well-fixed femoral bone-cement interface, and a well-functioning acetabular component. However, not all type B fractures can or should be managed with fixation due to the risk of early failure. This annotation details specific fracture patterns that should not be managed with fixation alone. Cite this article:
Periprosthetic hip fractures (PPFs) after total hip arthroplasty are difficult to treat. Therefore, it is important to identify modifiable risk factors such as stem selection to reduce the occurrence of PPFs. This study aimed to clarify differences in fracture torque, surface strain, and fracture type analysis between three different types of cemented stems. We conducted biomechanical testing of bone analogues using six cemented stems of three different types: collarless polished tapered (CPT) stem, Versys Advocate (Versys) stem, and Charnley-Marcel-Kerboull (CMK) stem. Experienced surgeons implanted each of these types of stems into six bone analogues, and the analogues were compressed and internally rotated until failure. Torque to fracture and fracture type were recorded. We also measured surface strain distribution using triaxial rosettes.Aims
Methods