Objectives. 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. Methods. 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. Results. The mean shear strength for OSCAR-prepared specimens (33.6 MPa) was significantly lower than for the control (46.3 MPa) and burr (45.8 MPa) groups (p < 0.001; one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Tukey’s post hoc analysis). There was no significant difference in shear strengths between control and burr groups (p = 0.57). Scanning electron microscopy of OSCAR specimens revealed evidence of porosity undiscovered in previous studies. Conclusion. Results show that the cement removal technique impacts on final cement-in-cement bonds. This in vitro study demonstrates significantly weaker bonds when using OSCAR prior to recementation into an old cement mantle compared with cement prepared with a burr or no treatment. This infers that care must be taken in surgical decision-making regarding cement removal techniques used during cement-in-cement revision arthroplasty, suggesting that the risks and benefits of ultrasonic cement removal need consideration. Cite this article: A. Liddle, M. Webb, N. Clement, S. Green, J. Liddle, M. German, J. Holland. Ultrasonic cement removal in cement-in-cement revision total hip arthroplasty: What is the effect on the final cement-in-cement bond? Bone Joint Res 2019;8:246–252. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.86.BJR-2018-0313.R1

Aims. Femoral cement-in-cement revision is a well described technique to reduce morbidity and complications in hip revision surgery. Traditional techniques for septic revision of hip arthroplasty necessitate removal of all bone cement from the femur. In our two centres, we have been using a cement-in-cement technique, leaving the distal femoral bone cement in selected patients for septic hip revision surgery, both for single and the first of two-stage revision procedures. A prerequisite for adoption of this technique is that the surgeon considers the cement mantle to be intimately fixed to bone without an intervening membrane between cement and host bone. We aim to report our experience for this technique. Methods. We have analyzed patients undergoing this cement-in-cement technique for femoral revision in infection, and present a consecutive series of 89 patients. Follow-up was undertaken at a mean of 56.5 months (24.0 to 134.7) for the surviving cases. Results. Seven patients (7.9%) required further revision for infection. Ten patients died of causes unrelated to their infection before their two-year review (mean 5.9 months; 0.9 to 18.6). One patient was lost to follow-up at five months after surgery, and two patients died of causes unrelated to their hip shortly after their two-year review was due without attending. Of the remaining patients, 69 remained infection-free at final review. Radiological review confirms the mechanical success of the procedure as previously described in aseptic revision, and postoperative Oxford Hip Scores suggest satisfactory functional outcomes. Conclusion. In conclusion, we found that retaining a well-fixed femoral cement mantle in the presence of infection and undertaking a cement-in-cement revision was successful in 82 of the patients (92.1%) in our series of 89, both in terms of eradication of infection and component fixation. These results are comparable to other more invasive techniques and offer significant potential benefits to the patient. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(2):212–220

Aims. 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. Patients and Methods. 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. Results. Survivorship is reported up to six years and was better in the Exeter group (91% standard deviation (. sd). 2.8% versus 85% . sd. 5.0%) (p = 0.02). There was, however, no significant difference in the survival of the stem and risk of re-revision for any reason (p = 0.58) and for aseptic loosening (p = 0.97), between revisions in which the Exeter stem (94% . sd. 2.2%; 98% . sd. 1.6%) was used compared with those in which the Lubinus stem (95% . sd. 3.2%; 98% . sd.  2.2%) was used. The database did not allow identification of whether a further revision was indicated for loosening of the acetabular or femoral component or both. Conclusion. The cement-in-cement technique for revision of the femoral component gave promising results using both designs of stem, six years post-operatively. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B(4 Supple B):27–32

Aims. We present the clinical and radiological results at a minimum follow-up of five years for patients who have undergone multiple cement-in-cement revisions of their femoral component at revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). Patients and Methods. We reviewed the outcome on a consecutive series of 24 patients (10 men, 14 women) (51 procedures) who underwent more than one cement-in-cement revision of the same femoral component. The mean age of the patients was 67.5 years (36 to 92) at final follow-up. Function was assessed using the original Harris hip score (HHS), Oxford Hip Score (OHS) and the Merle D’Aubigné Postel score (MDP). Results. The mean length of follow-up was 81.7 months (64 to 240). A total of 41 isolated acetabular revisions were performed in which stem removal facilitated access to the acetabulum, six revisions were conducted for loosening of both components and two were isolated stem revisions (each of these patients had undergone at least two revisions). There was significant improvement in the OHS (p = 0.041), HHS (p = 0.019) and MDP (p = 0.042) scores at final follow-up There were no stem revisions for aseptic loosening. Survival of the femoral component was 91.9% (95% confidence intervals (CI) 71.5 to 97.9) at five years and 91.7% (95% CI 70 to 97) at ten years (number at risk 13), with stem revision for all causes as the endpoint. Conclusion. Cement-in-cement revision is a viable technique for performing multiple revisions of the well cemented femoral component during revision total hip arthroplasty at a minimum of five years follow-up. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:199–203

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 taper-slip design is a safe and reliable technique when used for the correct indications. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(7):1215–1221

The mechanical performance of the cement-in-cement interface in revision surgery has not been fully investigated. The quantitative effect posed by interstitial fluids and roughening of the primary mantle remains unclear. We have analysed the strength of the bilaminar cement-bone interface after exposure of the surface of the primary mantle to roughening and fluid interference. The end surfaces of cylindrical blocks of cement were machined smooth (Ra = 200 nm) or rough (Ra = 5 μm) and exposed to either different volumes of water and carboxymethylcellulose (a bone-marrow equivalent) or left dry. Secondary blocks were cast against the modelled surface. Monoblocks of cement were used as a control group. The porosity of the samples was investigated using micro-CT. Samples were exposed to a single shearing force to failure. The mean failure load of the monoblock control was 5.63 kN (95% confidence interval (CI) 5.17 to 6.08) with an estimated shear strength of 36 MPa. When small volumes of any fluid or large volumes were used, the respective values fell between 4.66 kN and 4.84 kN with no significant difference irrespective of roughening (p > 0.05). Large volumes of carboxymethylcellulose significantly weakened the interface. Roughening in this group significantly increased the strength with failure loads of 2.80 kN (95% CI 2.37 to 3.21) compared with 0.86 kN (95% CI 0.43 to 1.27) in the smooth variant. Roughening of the primary mantle may not therefore be as crucial as has been previously thought in clinically relevant circumstances

The technique of femoral cement-in-cement revision is well established, but there are no previous series reporting its use on the acetabular side at the time of revision total hip replacement. We describe the technique and report the outcome of 60 consecutive acetabular cement-in-cement revisions in 59 patients at a mean follow-up of 8.5 years (5 to 12). All had a radiologically and clinically well-fixed acetabular cement mantle at the time of revision. During the follow-up 29 patients died, but no hips were lost to follow-up. The two most common indications for acetabular revision were recurrent dislocation (46, 77%) and to complement femoral revision (12, 20%). . Of the 60 hips, there were two cases of aseptic loosening of the acetabular component (3.3%) requiring re-revision. No other hip was clinically or radiologically loose (96.7%) at the latest follow-up. One hip was re-revised for infection, four for recurrent dislocation and one for disarticulation of a constrained component. At five years the Kaplan-Meier survival rate was 100% for aseptic loosening and 92.2% (95% CI 84.8 to 99.6), with revision for any cause as the endpoint. These results support the use of cement-in-cement revision on the acetabular side in appropriate cases. Theoretical advantages include preservation of bone stock, reduced operating time, reduced risk of complications and durable fixation

The removal of all prosthetic material and a two-stage revision procedure is the established standard management of an infected total hip replacement (THR). However, the removal of well-fixed femoral cement is time-consuming and can result in significant loss of bone stock and femoral shaft perforation or fracture. We report our results of two-stage revision THR for treating infection, with retention of the original well-fixed femoral cement mantle in 15 patients, who were treated between 1989 and 2002. Following partial excision arthroplasty, patients received local and systemic antibiotics and underwent reconstruction and re-implantation at a second-stage procedure, when the infection had resolved.

The mean follow-up of these 15 patients was 82 months (60 to 192). Two patients had positive microbiology at the second stage and were treated with six weeks of appropriate antibiotics; one of these developed recurrent infection requiring further revision. Successful eradication of infection was achieved in the remaining 14 patients.

We conclude that when two-stage revision is used for the treatment of peri-prosthetic infection involving a THR, a well-fixed femoral cement mantle can be safely left in situ, without compromising the treatment of infection. Advantages of this technique include a shorter operating time, reduced loss of bone stock and a technically more straightforward second-stage procedure.

The removal of well-fixed bone cement from the femoral canal during revision of a total hip replacement (THR) can be difficult and risks the loss of excessive bone stock and perforation or fracture of the femoral shaft. Retaining the cement mantle is attractive, yet the technique of cement-in-cement revision is not widely practised. We have used this procedure at our hospital since 1989. The stems were removed to gain a better exposure for acetabular revision, to alter version or leg length, or for component incompatibility. We studied 136 hips in 134 patients and followed them up for a mean of eight years (5 to 15). A further revision was required in 35 hips (25.7%), for acetabular loosening in 26 (19.1%), sepsis in four, instability in three, femoral fracture in one and stem fracture in one. No femoral stem needed to be re-revised for aseptic loosening. A cement-in-cement revision of the femoral stem is a reliable technique in the medium term. It also reduces the risk of perforation or fracture of the femoral shaft

Aims. Periprosthetic fractures (PPFs) around cemented taper-slip femoral prostheses often result in a femoral component that is loose at the prosthesis-cement interface, but where the cement-bone interface remains well-fixed and bone stock is good. We aim to understand how best to classify and manage these fractures by using a modification of the Vancouver classification. Methods. We reviewed 87 PPFs. Each was a first episode of fracture around a cemented femoral component, where surgical management consisted of revision surgery. Data regarding initial injury, intraoperative findings, and management were prospectively collected. Patient records and serial radiographs were reviewed to determine fracture classification, whether the bone cement was well fixed (B2W) or loose (B2L), and time to fracture union following treatment. Results. In total, 47 B2W fractures (54.0%) and one B3 fracture (1.1%) had cement that remained well-fixed at the cement-bone interface. These cases were treated with cement-in-cement (CinC) revision arthroplasty. Overall, 43 fractures with follow-up united, and two patients sustained further fractures secondary to nonunion and required further revision surgery. A total of 19 B2L fractures (21.8%) and 19 B3 fractures (21.8%) had cement that was loose at the cement-bone interface. These cases were managed by revision arthroplasty with either cemented or uncemented femoral components, or proximal femoral arthroplasty. One case could not be classified. Conclusion. We endorse a modification of the original Vancouver system to include a subclassification of B2 fractures around cemented femoral prostheses to include B2W (where cement is well-fixed to bone) and B2L (where the cement is loose). Fractures around taper-slip design stems are more likely to fracture in a B2W pattern compared to fractures around composite beam design stems which are more likely to fracture in a B2L pattern. B2W fractures can reliably be managed with CinC revision. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(1):71–78

We describe two cases of fracture of Corin Taper-Fit stems used for cement-in-cement revision of congenital dysplasia of the hip. Both prostheses were implanted in patients in their 50s, with high offsets (+7.5 mm and +3.5 mm), one with a large diameter (48 mm) head and one with a constrained acetabular component. Fracture of the stems took place at nine months and three years post-operatively following low-demand activity. Both fractures occurred at the most medial of the two stem introducer holes in the neck of the prosthesis, a design feature that is unique to the Taper-Fit stem. We would urge caution in the use of these particular stems for cement-in-cement revisions

Aims

The Exeter V40 femoral stem is the most implanted stem in the National Joint Registry (NJR) for primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). In 2004, the 44/00/125 stem was released for use in ‘cement-in-cement’ revision cases. It has, however, been used ‘off-label’ as a primary stem when patient anatomy requires a smaller stem with a 44 mm offset. We aimed to investigate survival of this implant in comparison to others in the range when used in primary THAs recorded in the NJR.

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: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(5):481–486.

Aims

The aim of this study was to report the long-term follow-up of cemented short Exeter femoral components when used in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA).

Polished taper-slip (PTS) cemented stems have an excellent clinical track record and are the most common stem type used in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) in the UK. Due to low rates of aseptic loosening, they have largely replaced more traditional composite beam (CB) cemented stems. However, there is now emerging evidence from multiple joint registries that PTS stems are associated with higher rates of postoperative periprosthetic femoral fracture (PFF) compared to their CB stem counterparts. The risk of both intraoperative and postoperative PFF remains greater with uncemented stems compared to either of these cemented stem subtypes. PFF continues to be a devastating complication following primary THA and is associated with high complication and mortality rates. Recent efforts have focused on identifying implant-related risk factors for PFF in order to guide preventative strategies, and therefore the purpose of this article is to present the current evidence on the effect of cemented femoral stem design on the risk of PFF.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(1):11–15.

Aims

Femoral periprosthetic fractures are rising in incidence. Their management is complex and carries a high associated mortality. Unlike native hip fractures, there are no guidelines advising on time to theatre in this group. We aim to determine whether delaying surgical intervention influences morbidity or mortality in femoral periprosthetic fractures.

The April 2024 Hip & Pelvis Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Impaction bone grafting for femoral revision hip arthroplasty with the Exeter stem; Effect of preoperative corticosteroids on postoperative glucose control in total joint replacement; Tranexamic acid in patients with a history of venous thromboembolism; Bisphosphonate use may be associated with an increased risk of periprosthetic hip fracture; A balanced approach: exploring the impact of surgical techniques on hip arthroplasty outcomes; A leap forward in hip arthroplasty: dual-mobility bearings reduce groin pain; A new perspective on complications: the link between blood glucose and joint infection risks.

Aims

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.