Aims. Refobacin Bone Cement R and Palacos R + G bone cement were introduced to replace the original cement Refobacin Palacos R in 2005. Both cements were assumed to behave in a biomechanically similar fashion to the original cement. The primary aim of this study was to compare the migration of a polished triple-tapered femoral stem fixed with either Refobacin Bone Cement R or Palacos R + G bone cement. Repeated radiostereometric analysis was used to measure migration of the femoral head centre. The secondary aims were evaluation of cement mantle, stem positioning, and patient-reported outcome measures. Methods. Overall, 75 patients were included in the study and 71 were available at two years postoperatively. Prior to surgery, they were randomized to one of the three combinations studied: Palacos cement with use of the Optivac mixing system, Refobacin with use of the Optivac system, and Refobacin with use of the Optipac system. Cemented MS30 stems and cemented Exceed acetabular components were used in all hips. Postoperative radiographs were used to assess the quality of the cement mantle according to Barrack et al, and the position and migration of the femoral stem. Harris Hip Score, Oxford Hip Score, Forgotten Joint Score, and University of California, Los Angeles Activity Scale were collected. Results. Median distal migration (y-axis) at two years for the Refobacin-Optivac system was -0.79 mm (-2.01 to -0.09), for the Refobacin-Optipac system was -0.75 mm (-2.16 to 0.20), and for the Palacos-Optivac system was -1.01 mm (-4.31 to -0.29). No statistically significant differences were found between the groups. Secondary outcomes did not differ statistically between the groups at the two-year follow-up. Conclusion. At two years, we found no significant differences in distal migration or clinical outcomes between the three groups. Our data indicate that Refobacin Bone Cement R and Palacos R + G are comparable in terms of stable fixation and early clinical outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(5):435–441

Aims. The widely used and well-proven Palacos R (a.k.a. Refobacin Palacos R) bone cement is no longer commercially available and was superseded by Refobacin bone cement R and Palacos R + G in 2005. However, the performance of these newly introduced bone cements have not been tested in a phased evidence-based manner, including roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis (RSA). Patients and Methods. In this blinded, randomised, clinical RSA study, the migration of the Stanmore femoral component was compared between Refobacin bone cement R and Palacos R + G in 62 consecutive total hip arthroplasties. The primary outcome measure was femoral component migration measured using RSA and secondary outcomes were Harris hip score (HHS), Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS), EuroQol 5D (EQ-5D) and Short Form 36 (SF-36). Results. Femoral component migration was comparable between Refobacin bone cement R and Palacos R + G during the two-year follow-up period with an estimated mean difference of 0.06 mm of subsidence (p = 0.56) and 0.08° of retroversion (p = 0.82). Five hips (three Refobacin bone cement R and two Palacos R + G) showed non-stabilising, continuous migration; the femoral cement mantle in these hips, was mean 0.7 mm thicker (p = 0.02) and there were more radiolucencies at the bone-cement interface (p = 0.004) in comparison to hips showing stabilising migration. Post-operative HHS was comparable throughout the follow-up period (p = 0.62). HOOS, EQ5D, and SF-36 scores were also comparable (p-values >  0.05) at the two-year follow-up point. Conclusion. Refobacin bone cement R and Palacos R + G show comparable component migration and clinical outcome during the first two post-operative years. Hips showing continuous migration are at risk for early failure. However, this seems to be unrelated to cement type, but rather to cementing technique. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:1333–41