Literature DB >> 18245589

Total hip arthroplasty with cement and use of a collared matte-finish femoral component: nineteen to twenty-year follow-up.

John J Callaghan1, Steve S Liu, Daniel E Firestone, Tameem M Yehyawi, Devon D Goetz, Jason Sullivan, David A Vittetoe, Michael R O'Rourke, Richard C Johnston.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In the mid- to late 1970s, on the basis of laboratory and finite element data, many surgeons in the United States began using collared matte-finish femoral components and metal-backed acetabular components in their total hip arthroplasties. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term results of the use of one such construct in arthroplasties performed by a single surgeon in a consecutive nonselected patient cohort.
METHODS: Between January 1984 and December 1985, 273 patients underwent a total of 304 consecutive nonselected total hip arthroplasties with cement and use of the Iowa femoral component (which is collared, has a proximal cobra shape, and has a matte finish) and a metal-backed TiBac acetabular component performed by a single surgeon. At nineteen to twenty years postoperatively, only two patients (two hips) were lost to follow-up. For clinical evaluation, we attempted to interview all living patients and the families of the patients who had died to verify the status of the hip prosthesis or any revisions. Radiographic evaluation consisted of analysis for loosening and osteolysis as well as wear of the acetabular component.
RESULTS: At the time of the nineteen to twenty-year follow-up, the rate of revision of the arthroplasty for any reason was 10.5% (thirty-two hips) for all patients and 25% (twenty-three hips) for living patients. The rate of revision due to aseptic femoral loosening was 2.6% (eight hips). There was radiographic evidence of loosening of the femoral component in fifteen hips (4.9%), including those that were revised, and femoral osteolysis was seen distal to the trochanters in twenty-two hips (7.2%). The rate of revision due to aseptic loosening of the acetabular component was 7.9% (twenty-four hips), and there was radiographic evidence of acetabular loosening in forty-two hips (13.8%), including those that were revised.
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the durability of a cemented matte-finish collared femoral component at twenty years postoperatively, with a rate of revision due to aseptic loosening of 2.6%. The metal-backed acetabular component also performed well in many patients, with a 7.9% rate of revision due to aseptic loosening. However, in the living patients, the rate of loosening of the acetabular component, including cases revised because of aseptic loosening, was 30.4%.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18245589     DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.G.00095

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


  10 in total

1.  Survival of the cementless Spotorno stem in the second decade.

Authors:  Peter R Aldinger; Alexander W Jung; Steffen J Breusch; Volker Ewerbeck; Dominik Parsch
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2009-06-06       Impact factor: 4.176

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

Review 3.  Is there evidence for a superior method of socket fixation in hip arthroplasty? A systematic review.

Authors:  Dean Pakvis; Gijs van Hellemondt; Enrico de Visser; Wilco Jacobs; Maarten Spruit
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2011-03-15       Impact factor: 3.075

4.  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

5.  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

Review 6.  Reoperation After Cervical Disc Arthroplasty Versus Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Zhao-Ming Zhong; Shi-Yuan Zhu; Jing-Shen Zhuang; Qian Wu; Jian-Ting Chen
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2016-02-01       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 7.  [Long-term results of uncemented stems in total hip arthroplasty: analysis of survival rates with a minimum 15-year follow-up].

Authors:  C Merle; M Clarius; P R Aldinger
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 1.087

8.  The concept of a cementless isoelastic monoblock cup made of highly cross-linked polyethylene infused with vitamin E: radiological analyses of migration and wear using EBRA and clinical outcomes at mid-term follow-up.

Authors:  Yama Afghanyar; Sebastian Joser; Jonas Tecle; Philipp Drees; Jens Dargel; Philipp Rehbein; Karl Philipp Kutzner
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2021-01-23       Impact factor: 2.362

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

Review 10.  Material Science in Cervical Total Disc Replacement.

Authors:  Martin H Pham; Vivek A Mehta; Alexander Tuchman; Patrick C Hsieh
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2015-10-07       Impact factor: 3.411

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.