Literature DB >> 11741064

Charnley total hip arthroplasty with use of improved cementing techniques: a minimum twenty-year follow-up study.

A S Klapach1, J J Callaghan, D D Goetz, J P Olejniczak, R C Johnston.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In total hip arthroplasty, techniques for cementing the femoral component have changed over time. The purpose of the present study was to determine whether a cementing technique that includes use of a distal cement plug and retrograde filling of the femoral canal affects the fixation of the femoral component at a minimum of twenty years after the operation.
METHODS: Between 1976 and 1978, the senior one of us (R.C.J.) performed 357 total hip arthroplasties with use of a Charnley flatback polished femoral stem and a contemporary cementing technique (insertion of a distal cement plug and retrograde filling of the femoral canal with cement) in 320 patients. The results after a minimum follow-up of twenty years were compared with those after 330 total hip arthroplasties performed, between 1970 and 1972, with the same femoral stem by the same surgeon with use of a hand-packing technique of cementing in 262 patients. The clinical and radiographic evaluation as well as the duration of follow-up were identical in the two groups.
RESULTS: In the group managed with the contemporary cementing technique, six (1.8%) of the 336 hips that had not been lost to follow-up or revised because of infection or dislocation were revised because of aseptic loosening of the femoral component. Of the ninety-one hips in the eighty-two patients who were alive at a minimum of twenty years, five (5%) had a revision because of aseptic loosening of the femoral component. Only one hip was revised during the fifteen-to-twenty-year follow-up interval. (The revision was performed because of a fracture of the femoral component.) The rate of failure when radiographic signs of loosening were included was 4.8% (sixteen of 336 femoral components that had not been revised because of infection or dislocation) for the group managed with the contemporary cementing technique compared with 6.3% (twenty of 319 hips) in the group managed with the hand-packing technique; the difference was not significant (p = 0.40). Adequate filling of the femoral canal with cement was found to be associated with improved survival of the femoral component (p = 0.03).
CONCLUSIONS: While no significant difference between the two cementing techniques could be identified, the ability to deliver adequate cement around the femoral component was more predictable with the contemporary cementing technique. In addition, the prevalence of loosening of the femoral component was low with use of either technique, a tribute to the Charnley flatback polished femoral component design.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11741064     DOI: 10.2106/00004623-200112000-00012

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am        ISSN: 0021-9355            Impact factor:   5.284


  12 in total

1.  Femoral cementing techniques: current trends in the UK.

Authors:  S K Nedungayil; S Mehendele; S Gheduzzi; I D Learmonth
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 1.891

2.  Cementless femoral prostheses cost more to implant than cemented femoral prostheses.

Authors:  Aasis Unnanuntana; Apostolos Dimitroulias; Michael P Bolognesi; Katherine L Hwang; Stuart B Goodman; Randall E Marcus
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2008-09-10       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  What works best, a cemented or cementless primary total hip arthroplasty?: minimum 17-year followup of a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Kristoff Corten; Robert B Bourne; Kory D Charron; Keegan Au; Cecil H Rorabeck
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2010-07-13       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  Long-term outcomes of total hip arthroplasty in patients younger than 55 years: a systematic review of the contemporary literature

Authors:  Xin Yu Mei; Ying Jia Gong; Oleg Safir; Allan Gross; Paul Kuzyk
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2019-08-01       Impact factor: 2.089

Review 5.  Systematic review of literature of cemented femoral components: what is the durability at minimum 20 years followup?

Authors:  Nicholas A Bedard; John J Callaghan; Michael D Stefl; Steve S Liu
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  What Can We Learn From 20-year Followup Studies of Hip Replacement?

Authors:  Christopher T Martin; John J Callaghan; Yubo Gao; Andrew J Pugely; Steve S Liu; Lucian C Warth; Devon D Goetz
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  Femoral remodeling around Charnley total hip arthroplasty is unpredictable.

Authors:  Matthew J Teusink; Katharine A Callaghan; Noelle F Klocke; Devon D Goetz; John J Callaghan
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  Cementation technique for elbow arthroplasty; an international survey.

Authors:  Tariq A Kwaees; Rohit Singhal; Denise Eygendaal; Charalambos P Charalambous
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2019-07-01

Review 9.  Risk factors for revision of primary total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review.

Authors:  Julian Jz Prokopetz; Elena Losina; Robin L Bliss; John Wright; John A Baron; Jeffrey N Katz
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2012-12-15       Impact factor: 2.362

10.  An experimental animal model of aseptic loosening of hip prostheses in sheep to study early biochemical changes at the interface membrane.

Authors:  Alexander O El-Warrak; Marvin Olmstead; Rebecca Schneider; Lorenz Meinel; Regula Bettschart-Wolfisberger; Margarete K Akens; Joerg Auer; Brigitte von Rechenberg
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2004-03-03       Impact factor: 2.362

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.