A. J. Timperley

Revision of the cemented femoral stem using a cement-in-cement technique: a five- to 15-year review.

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.

Impaction grafting of the femur in two-stage revision for infected total hip replacement

We report the mid-term results of femoral impaction grafting which was used in 53 patients during the second stage of a two-stage revision for an infected total hip replacement. We reviewed all cases performed between 1989 and 1998. All patients underwent a Girdlestone excision arthroplasty, received local and systemic antibiotics and subsequently underwent reconstruction, using femoral impaction grafting. Four patients had further infection (7.5%), and four died within 24 months of surgery. One patient underwent revision of the stem for a fracture below its tip at ten months. This left 44 patients with a mean follow-up of 53 months (24 to 122). All had improved clinical scores and a satisfactory radiological outcome.

Acetabular components in total hip arthroplasty: is there evidence that cementless fixation is better?

BACKGROUND The use of cementless acetabular components in total hip arthroplasty has gained popularity over the past decade. Most total hip arthroplasties being performed in North America currently use cementless acetabular components. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the survivorship and revision rate of cemented and cementless acetabular components utilized in total hip arthroplasty. METHODS A primary literature search in PubMed identified 3488 articles, of which 3407 did not meet the inclusion criteria and were excluded. Only English-language articles on either the survivorship or revision rate of primary total hip arthroplasty at a minimum of ten years of follow-up were included. The present study analyzed forty-five articles reporting the long-term outcome of cementless acetabular components, twenty-nine reporting the outcome of cemented acetabular components, and seven comparing cemented and cementless acetabular components. Meta-analysis (with a random-effects model) was performed on the data from the seven comparative studies, and study-level logistic regression analysis (with a quasibinomial model) was performed on the pooled data on the eighty-one included articles to determine a consensus. The studies were weighted according to the number of total hip arthroplasties performed. RESULTS The meta-analysis did not reveal any effect of the type of acetabular component fixation on either survivorship or revision rate. The regression analysis revealed the estimated odds ratio for survivorship of a cemented acetabular component to be 1.60 (95% confidence interval, 1.32 to 2.40; p = 0.002) when adjustments for factors including age, sex, and mean duration of follow-up were made. CONCLUSIONS The preference for cementless acetabular components on the basis of improved survivorship is not supported by the published evidence. Although concerns regarding aseptic loosening of cemented acetabular components may have led North American surgeons toward the nearly exclusive use of cementless acetabular components, the available literature suggests that the fixation of cemented acetabular components is more reliable than that of cementless components beyond the first postoperative decade.

Clinical and radiographic outcomes of acetabular impaction grafting without cage reinforcement for revision hip replacement a minimum ten-year follow-up study

Impaction bone grafting for the reconstitution of bone stock in revision hip surgery has been used for nearly 30 years. Between 1995 and 2001 we used this technique in acetabular reconstruction, in combination with a cemented component, in 304 hips in 292 patients revised for aseptic loosening. The only additional supports used were stainless steel meshes placed against the medial wall or laterally around the acetabular rim to contain the graft. All Paprosky grades of defect were included. Clinical and radiographic outcomes were collected in surviving patients at a minimum of ten years after the index operation. Mean follow-up was 12.4 years (sd 1.5) (10.0 to 16.0). Kaplan-Meier survival with revision for aseptic loosening as the endpoint was 85.9% (95% CI 81.0 to 90.8) at 13.5 years. Clinical scores for pain relief remained satisfactory, and there was no difference in clinical scores between cups that appeared stable and those that appeared radiologically loose.

Revision total hip replacement using the cement-in-cement technique for the acetabular component: Technique and results for 60 hips

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 Johnson-Elloy (Accord) total knee replacement: Poor results at 8 to 12 years

We have found poor mid-term results in a multisurgeon series of 94 Johnson-Elloy (Accord) total knee replacements. A total of 27 knees (29%) has required revision, in 26 for aseptic loosening. Only 18 (19%) remain in situ, and these give poor function, are painful and most show radiological evidence of early failure. At 12 to 13 years the survival rate is 43% (confidence interval 29 to 57) with failure requiring revision as the endpoint. Proximal migration of the femoral component is associated with considerable loss of bone stock. We believe that all patients who have this implant should be recalled for regular review in order to anticipate this problem.

Femoral impaction bone grafting in revision hip arthroplasty: 705 cases from the originating centre.

AIMS Femoral impaction bone grafting was first developed in 1987 using morselised cancellous bone graft impacted into the femoral canal in combination with a cemented, tapered, polished stem. We describe the evolution of this technique and instrumentation since that time. PATIENTS AND METHODS Between 1987 and 2005, 705 revision total hip arthroplasties (56 bilateral) were performed with femoral impaction grafting using a cemented femoral stem. All surviving patients were prospectively followed for a mean of 14.7 years (9.8 to 28.3) with no loss to follow-up. By the time of the final review, 404 patients had died. RESULTS There were 76 further revisions (10.8%) involving the stem; seven for aseptic loosening, 23 for periprosthetic fracture, 24 for infection, one for malposition, one for fracture of the stem and 19 cement-in-cement exchanges of the stem during acetabular revision. The 20-year survival rate for the entire series was 98.8% (95% confidence interval (CI) 97.8 to 99.8) with aseptic loosening as the endpoint, and 87.7% (95% CI 82.8 to 92.6) for revision for any reason. Survival improved with the evolution of the technique, although this was not statistically significant due to the overall low rate of further revision. CONCLUSION This is the largest series of revision total hip arthroplasties with femoral impaction grafting, and the results support the continued use of this technique. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:1611-19.

The concentric all-polyethylene Exeter acetabular component in primary total hip replacement

We report the outcome of the flangeless, cemented all-polyethylene Exeter acetabular component at a mean of 14.6 years (10 to 17) after operation. Of the 263 hips in 243 patients, 122 prostheses are still in situ; 112 patients (119 hips) have died, 18 hips have been revised, and three patients (four hips) were lost to follow-up. Radiographs at the final review were available for 110 of the 122 surviving hips. There were acetabular radiolucent lines in 54 hips (49%). Two acetabular components had migrated but neither patient required revision. The Kaplan-Meier survivorship at 15 years with 61 hips at risk with revision for any cause as the endpoint was 89.9% (95% confidence interval (CI) 84.6 to 95.2) and for aseptic loosening of the acetabular component or lysis 91.7% (95% CI 86.6 to 96.8). In 210 hips with a diagnosis of primary osteoarthritis, survivorship with revision for any cause as the endpoint was 93.2% (95% CI 88.1 to 98.3), and for aseptic loosening of the acetabular component 95.0% (95% CI 90.3 to 99.7). The cemented all-polyethylene Exeter acetabular component has an excellent long-term survivorship.

The Exeter Universal cemented femoral stem at 20 to 25 years: A report of 382 hips

AIMS We present a minimum 20-year follow-up study of 382 cemented Exeter Universal total hip arthroplasties (350 patients) operated on at a mean age of 66.3 years (17 to 94). PATIENTS AND METHODS All patients received the same design of femoral component, regardless of the original diagnosis. Previous surgery had been undertaken for 33 hips (8.6%). During the study period 218 patients with 236 hips (62%) died, 42 hips (11%) were revised and 110 hips (29%) in 96 patients were available for review. The acetabular components were varied and some designs are now obsolete, however they were all cemented. RESULTS With an endpoint of revision for aseptic loosening or lysis, survivorship of the stem at 22.8 years was 99.0% (95% confidence interval (CI) 97.0 to 100). One stem was revised 21 years post-operatively in a patient with Gauchers disease and proximal femoral osteolysis. Survivorship with aseptic loosening or lysis of the acetabular component or stem as the endpoint at 22.8 years was 89.3% (95% CI 84.8 to 93.8). With an endpoint of revision for any reason, overall survivorship was 82.9% (95% CI 77.4 to 88.4) at 22.8 years. Radiological review showed excellent preservation of bone stock at 20 to 25 years, and no impending failures of the stem. CONCLUSION The Exeter femoral stem continues to perform well beyond 20 years. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:1441-9.

Cement-in-cement revision of the femoral stem

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.