Literature DB >> 28363891

Cement-in-cement revision of the femoral stem: analysis of 1179 first-time revisions in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register.

P H J Cnudde1, J Kärrholm1, O Rolfson1, A J Timperley2, M Mohaddes1.   

Abstract

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. ©2017 Cnudde et al.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cement-in-cement; Femur; Joint register; Re-revision; Revision hip arthroplasty

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28363891     DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.99B4.BJJ-2016-1222.R1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Bone Joint J        ISSN: 2049-4394            Impact factor:   5.082


  9 in total

1.  Cement-in-cement revision with the Exeter Short Revision Stem: A review of 50 consecutive hips.

Authors:  Andrew J Berg; Antonia Hoyle; Edward Yates; Aslam Chougle; Rama Mohan
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2019-04-09

2.  Are large fracture trials really possible? What we have learned from the randomized controlled damage control study?

Authors:  Eva Steinhausen; Bertil Bouillon; Dieter Rixen
Journal:  Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg       Date:  2017-12-28       Impact factor: 3.693

Review 3.  [Strategies for stem revision : Surgery planning, implant removal and reimplantation].

Authors:  Sebastian Hardt; Lukas Schönnagel; Christian Hipfl
Journal:  Orthopadie (Heidelb)       Date:  2022-07-08

Review 4.  [Pitfalls in revision hip arthroplasty].

Authors:  Carsten Perka; Rudolf Ascherl
Journal:  Orthopadie (Heidelb)       Date:  2022-07-16

5.  Comparable outcomes of in-cement revision and uncemented modular stem revision for Vancouver B2 periprosthetic femoral fracture at 5 years.

Authors:  Antonio Klasan; James Millar; Jonathan Quayle; Bill Farrington; Peter Nicholas Misur
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2021-02-11       Impact factor: 3.067

Review 6.  Cement-in-cement technique of the femoral component in aseptic total hip arthroplasty revision: A systematic review of the contemporary literature.

Authors:  Michael-Alexander Malahias; Fabio Mancino; Amil Agarwal; Leonidas Roumeliotis; Alex Gu; Ioannis Gkiatas; Danilo Togninalli; Vasileios S Nikolaou; Michael M Alexiades
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2021-06-30

7.  Ultrasonic cement removal in cement-in-cement revision total hip arthroplasty: What is the effect on the final cement-in-cement bond?

Authors:  A Liddle; M Webb; N Clement; S Green; J Liddle; M German; J Holland
Journal:  Bone Joint Res       Date:  2019-07-05       Impact factor: 5.853

8.  The cement-bone bond is weaker than cement-cement bond in cement-in-cement revision arthroplasty. A comparative biomechanical study.

Authors:  Marcin Ceynowa; Krzysztof Zerdzicki; Pawel Klosowski; Maciej Zrodowski; Rafal Pankowski; Marek Roclawski; Tomasz Mazurek
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-02-11       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Surgical Technique of a Cement-On-Cement Removal System for Hip and Knee Arthroplasty Revision Surgery.

Authors:  Miguel Tovar-Bazaga; David Sáez-Martínez; Álvaro Auñón; Felipe López-Oliva; Belén Pardos-Mayo; Emilio Calvo
Journal:  Arthroplast Today       Date:  2021-06-15
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.