Previous studies have evidenced cement-in-cement techniques as reliable in revision arthroplasty. Commonly, the original cement mantle is reshaped, aiding accurate placement of the new stem. Ultrasonic devices selectively remove cement, preserve host bone, and have lower cortical perforation rates than other techniques. As far as the authors are aware, the impact of ultrasonic devices on final cement-in-cement bonds has not been investigated. This study assessed the impact of cement removal using the Orthosonics System for Cemented Arthroplasty Revision (OSCAR; Orthosonics) on final cement-in-cement bonds. A total of 24 specimens were manufactured by pouring cement (Simplex P Bone Cement; Stryker) into stainless steel moulds, with a central rod polished to Stryker Exeter V40 specifications. After cement curing, the rods were removed and eight specimens were allocated to each of three internal surface preparation groups: 1) burr; 2) OSCAR; and 3) no treatment. Internal holes were recemented, and each specimen was cut into 5 mm discs. Shear testing of discs was completed by a technician blinded to the original grouping, recording ultimate shear strengths. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was completed, inspecting surfaces of shear-tested specimens.Objectives
Methods
The management of acetabular defects at the time of revision hip arthroplasty surgery is a challenge. This study presents the results of a long-term follow-up study of the use of irradiated allograft bone in acetabular reconstruction. Between 1990 and 2000, 123 hips in 110 patients underwent acetabular reconstruction for aseptic loosening, using impaction bone grafting with frozen, irradiated, and morsellized femoral heads and a cemented acetabular component. A total of 55 men and 55 women with a mean age of 64.3 years (26 to 97) at the time of revision surgery are included in this study.Aims
Patients and Methods
Aims
Patients and Methods
In order to address acetabular defects, porous metal revision acetabular components and augments have been developed, which require fixation to each other. The fixation technique that results in the smallest relative movement between the components, as well as its influence on the primary stability with the host bone, have not previously been determined. A total of 18 composite hemipelvises with a Paprosky IIB defect were implanted using a porous titanium 56 mm multihole acetabular component and 1 cm augment. Each acetabular component and augment was affixed to the bone using two screws, while the method of fixation between the acetabular component and augment varied for the three groups of six hemipelvises: group S, screw fixation only; group SC, screw plus cement fixation; group C, cement fixation only. The implanted hemipelvises were cyclically loaded to three different loading maxima (0.5 kN, 0.9 kN, and 1.8 kN).Objectives
Methods
Compared with primary total hip arthroplasty (THA), revision
surgery can be challenging. The cement-in-cement femoral revision
technique involves removing a femoral component from a well-fixed
femoral cement mantle and cementing a new stem into the original
mantle. This technique is widely used and when carried out for the
correct indications, is fast, relatively inexpensive and carries
a reduced short-term risk for the patient compared with the alternative
of removing well-fixed cement. We report the outcomes of this procedure
when two commonly used femoral stems are used. We identified 1179 cement-in-cement stem revisions involving
an Exeter or a Lubinus stem reported to the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty
Register (SHAR) between January 1999 and December 2015. Kaplan-Meier
survival analysis was performed.Aims
Patients and Methods
Periprosthetic fracture (PF) after primary total hip arthroplasty
(THA) is an uncommon but potentially devastating complication. This
study aims to investigate the influence of cemented stem designs
on the risk of needing a revision for a PF. We analysed data on 257 202 primary THAs with cemented stems
and 390 linked first revisions for PF recorded in the National Joint
Registry (NJR) of England, Wales and Northern Ireland to determine
if a cemented femoral stem brand was associated with the risk of
having revision for a PF after primary THA. All cemented femoral
stem brands with more than 10 000 primary operations recorded in
the NJR were identified. The four most commonly used cemented femoral
stems were the Exeter V40 (n = 146 409), CPT (n = 24 300), C-Stem
(n = 15 113) and Charnley (n = 20 182). We compared the revision risk ratios due to PF amongst the stems
using a Poisson regression model adjusting for patient factors.
Compared with the Exeter V40, the age, gender and ASA grade adjusted
revision rate ratio was 3.89 for the cemented CPT stem (95% confidence
interval (CI) 3.07 to 4.93), 0.89 for the C-Stem (95% CI 0.57 to
1.41) and 0.41 for the Charnley stem (95% CI 0.24 to 0.70).Aims
Patients and Methods
Periprosthetic femoral fracture (PFF) is a potentially
devastating complication after total hip arthroplasty, with historically
high rates of complication and failure because of the technical
challenges of surgery, as well as the prevalence of advanced age
and comorbidity in the patients at risk. This study describes the short-term outcome after revision arthroplasty
using a modular, titanium, tapered, conical stem for PFF in a series
of 38 fractures in 37 patients. The mean age of the cohort was 77 years (47 to 96). A total of
27 patients had an American Society of Anesthesiologists grade of
at least 3. At a mean follow-up of 35 months (4 to 66) the mean
Oxford Hip Score (OHS) was 35 (15 to 48) and comorbidity was significantly
associated with a poorer OHS. All fractures united and no stem needed
to be revised. Three hips in three patients required further surgery
for infection, recurrent PFF and recurrent dislocation and three
other patients required closed manipulation for a single dislocation.
One stem subsided more than 5 mm but then stabilised and required
no further intervention. In this series, a modular, tapered, conical stem provided a versatile
reconstruction solution with a low rate of complications. Cite this article:
The April 2015 Hip &
Pelvis Roundup360 looks at: Goal-directed fluid therapy in hip fracture; Liberal blood transfusion no benefit in the longer term; Repeated measures: increased accuracy or compounded errors?; Peri-acetabular osteotomy safer than perhaps thought?; Obesity and peri-acetabular osteotomy: poor bedfellows; Stress fracture in peri-acetabular osteotomy; Infection and tantalum implants; Highly crosslinked polyethylene really does work
In this retrospective study, we investigated
the results of revision total hip replacement (THR) using a cemented long-stemmed
Exeter femoral component, with a minimum length of 205 mm in patients
with extensive femoral bone defects. The study included 37 consecutive
patients with a mean age of 76 years (39 to 93) and a mean follow-up
of nine years (5 to 16). A total of 26 patients (70%) had a pre-operative
Endo-Klinik score of 3 or 4. Impaction bone grafting was used in
24 patients (65%). At the time of evaluation, 22 patients (59%)
were still alive and were evaluated clinically and radiologically.
A total of 14 patients died during follow-up and their data were
included until the time of their death. One reconstruction failed
after five years and five months owing to recurrent dislocation:
the hip was converted to an excision arthroplasty. Intra-operative
fractures or fissures were encountered in nine patients (24%), but
none occurred during impaction of the bone graft. Post-operative
peri-prosthetic fractures occurred in two patients (5%); both were
treated with plate fixation. At nine years, survival with the endpoint
of all-cause re-revision was 96.3% (95% CI 76.4 to 99.5); including
re-operations for any reason, it was 80.7% (95% CI 56.3 to 92.3%).
There were no re-revisions for aseptic loosening. The survival of long stem cemented femoral components following
revision THR is satisfactory in a fragile population with extensive
femoral defects. Cite this article:
Data on early morbidity and complications after
revision total hip replacement (THR) are limited. The aim of this nationwide
study was to describe and quantify early morbidity after aseptic
revision THR and relate the morbidity to the extent of the revision
surgical procedure. We analysed all aseptic revision THRs from 1st
October 2009 to 30th September 2011 using the Danish National Patient
Registry, with additional information from the Danish Hip Arthroplasty
Registry. There were 1553 procedures (1490 patients) performed in
40 centres and we divided them into total revisions, acetabular
component revisions, femoral stem revisions and partial revisions.
The mean age of the patients was 70.4 years (25 to 98) and the median
hospital stay was five days (interquartile range 3 to 7). Within 90
days of surgery, the readmission rate was 18.3%, mortality rate
1.4%, re-operation rate 6.1%, dislocation rate 7.0% and infection
rate 3.0%. There were no differences in these outcomes between high-
and low-volume centres. Of all readmissions, 255 (63.9%) were due
to ‘surgical’ complications Cite this article:
Total hip replacement (THR) still is a rare intervention
in many African countries. In Burkina Faso it is not performed on
a regular basis. A visiting programme for THR was started in a district
hospital with no previous relevant experience. In this paper we
present an analysis of the surgical technical problems and peri-operative
complications of 152 THRs in 136 patients and three bipolar hemiarthroplasties
in three patients undertaken in this new programme with limited
orthopaedic equipment. There were 86 male and 53 female patients
with a mean age of 49 years (21 to 78). We identified 77 intra-operative
technical problems in 51 operations. There were 24 peri-operative complications
in 21 patients, 17 of which were bony in nature. So far, ten revision
THRs have been performed in nine patients. Regular analysis of the technical problems and complications
was used to improve quality, and we identified patient selection
adapted to the local circumstances as important to avoid complications.
Our reflections on the problems encountered in initiating such a
programme may be of help to other teams planning similar projects. Cite this article:
Dislocation is one of the most common causes
of patient and surgeon dissatisfaction following hip replacement
and to treat it, the causes must first be understood. Patient factors
include age greater than 70 years, medical comorbidities, female
gender, ligamentous laxity, revision surgery, issues with the abductors,
and patient education. Surgeon factors include the annual quantity
of procedures and experience, the surgical approach, adequate restoration
of femoral offset and leg length, component position, and soft-tissue
or bony impingement. Implant factors include the design of the head
and neck region, and so-called skirts on longer neck lengths. There
should be offset choices available in order to restore soft-tissue
tension. Lipped liners aid in gaining stability, yet if improperly placed
may result in impingement and dislocation. Late dislocation may
result from polyethylene wear, soft-tissue destruction, trochanteric
or abductor disruption and weakness, or infection. Understanding
the causes of hip dislocation facilitates prevention in a majority
of instances. Proper pre-operative planning includes the identification
of patients with a high offset in whom inadequate restoration of
offset will reduce soft-tissue tension and abductor efficiency.
Component position must be accurate to achieve stability without impingement.
Finally, patient education cannot be over-emphasised, as most dislocations occur
early, and are preventable with proper instructions. Cite this article:
The use of ilioischial cage reconstruction for
pelvic discontinuity has been replaced by the Trabecular Metal (Zimmer,
Warsaw, Indiana) cup-cage technique in our institution, due to the
unsatisfactory outcome of using a cage alone in this situation.
We report the outcome of 26 pelvic discontinuities in 24 patients
(20 women and four men, mean age 65 years (44 to 84)) treated by
the cup-cage technique at a mean follow-up of 82 months (12 to 113)
and compared them with a series of 19 pelvic discontinuities in
19 patients (18 women and one man, mean age 70 years (42 to 86))
treated with a cage at a mean follow-up of 69 months (1 to 170).
The clinical and radiological outcomes as well as the survivorship
of the groups were compared. In all, four of the cup-cage group
(15%) and 13 (68%) of the cage group failed due to septic or aseptic
loosening. The seven-year survivorship was 87.2% (95% confidence interval
(CI) 71 to 103) for the cup-cage group and 49.9% (95% CI 15 to 84)
for the cage-alone group (p = 0.009). There were four major complications
in the cup-cage group and nine in the cage group. Radiological union
of the discontinuity was found in all successful cases in the cup-cage
group and three of the successful cage cases. Three hips in the
cup-cage group developed early radiological migration of the components,
which stabilised with a successful outcome. Cup-cage reconstruction is a reliable technique for treating
pelvic discontinuity in mid-term follow-up and is preferred to ilioischial
cage reconstruction. If the continuity of the bone graft at the
discontinuity site is not disrupted, early migration of the components
does not necessarily result in failure. Cite this article:
We reviewed 59 bone graft substitutes marketed
by 17 companies currently available for implantation in the United Kingdom,
with the aim of assessing the peer-reviewed literature to facilitate
informed decision-making regarding their use in clinical practice.
After critical analysis of the literature, only 22 products (37%)
had any clinical data. Norian SRS (Synthes), Vitoss (Orthovita),
Cortoss (Orthovita) and Alpha-BSM (Etex) had Level I evidence. We question
the need for so many different products, especially with limited
published clinical evidence for their efficacy, and conclude that
there is a considerable need for further prospective randomised
trials to facilitate informed decision-making with regard to the
use of current and future bone graft substitutes in clinical practice. Cite this article: