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.
We report on the outcome of a cemented flanged acetabular component at a minimum of 10 years post-operatively. Two hundred and three hips were reviewed in 194 consecutive patients who underwent primary total hip arthroplasty using this implant. Cases with acetabular defects requiring bone grafting were excluded. Functional and radiological data were prospectively recorded.Introduction
Patients/Materials & Methods
Comparison of the safety and efficacy of bilateral simultaneous total hip replacement (THR) and that of staged bilateral THR and unilateral THR was conducted using DerSimonian-Laird heterogeneity meta-analysis. A review of the English-language literature identified 23 citations eligible for inclusion. A total of 2063 bilateral simultaneous THR patients were identified. Meta-analysis of homogeneous data revealed no statistically significant differences in the rates of thromboembolic events (p = 0.268 and p = 0.365) and dislocation (p = 0.877) when comparing staged or unilateral with bilateral simultaneous THR procedures. A systematic analysis of heterogeneous data demonstrated that the mean length of hospital stay was shorter after bilateral simultaneous THR. Higher blood transfusion requirements were expected following bilateral simultaneous THR than staged or unilateral THR, and surgical time was not different between groups. This procedure was also found to be economically and functionally efficacious when performed by experienced surgeons in specialist centres.
