BACKGROUND: Studies comparing cementless and cemented cups are lacking, especially for revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). The aim of this study was to investigate and compare the differences in implant accuracy between two fixation methods in revision THA. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of 85 hips in 70 patients who underwent revision THA using a computed tomography (CT)-based navigation system. Among these, 53 hips underwent cementless THA and 32 hips underwent cemented THA. We measured cup inclination and anteversion using the Kyocera two-dimensional-template with X-ray (Japan-Kyocera, Shiga, Japan) and stem anteversion with CT. We calculated the combined anteversion [cup anteversion+0.7×stem anteversion]. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the two groups with respect to definitive cup inclination and anteversion. The mean deviations in the inclination and anteversion angle were 40.3 ± 4.3 and 19.6 ± 6.2° in the cementless group and 40.5 ± 3.3 and 17.1 ± 5.1° in the cemented group. There were 11 outliers with respect to the Lewinnek safe zone in the cementless group and two in the cemented group (P = 0.072). Although there was no statistically significant difference, the number of safe zone outliers in the cemented group was less than that in the cementless group. CONCLUSION: We conclude that when using a navigation system for revision THA, high precision can be obtained for the cup placement angle with or without cement. However, it seems that a major error in the installation angle of the cup is less likely to occur when using a cemented cup than when using a cementless cup in revision THA with a navigation system.
BACKGROUND: Studies comparing cementless and cemented cups are lacking, especially for revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). The aim of this study was to investigate and compare the differences in implant accuracy between two fixation methods in revision THA. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of 85 hips in 70 patients who underwent revision THA using a computed tomography (CT)-based navigation system. Among these, 53 hips underwent cementless THA and 32 hips underwent cemented THA. We measured cup inclination and anteversion using the Kyocera two-dimensional-template with X-ray (Japan-Kyocera, Shiga, Japan) and stem anteversion with CT. We calculated the combined anteversion [cup anteversion+0.7×stem anteversion]. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the two groups with respect to definitive cup inclination and anteversion. The mean deviations in the inclination and anteversion angle were 40.3 ± 4.3 and 19.6 ± 6.2° in the cementless group and 40.5 ± 3.3 and 17.1 ± 5.1° in the cemented group. There were 11 outliers with respect to the Lewinnek safe zone in the cementless group and two in the cemented group (P = 0.072). Although there was no statistically significant difference, the number of safe zone outliers in the cemented group was less than that in the cementless group. CONCLUSION: We conclude that when using a navigation system for revision THA, high precision can be obtained for the cup placement angle with or without cement. However, it seems that a major error in the installation angle of the cup is less likely to occur when using a cemented cup than when using a cementless cup in revision THA with a navigation system.
Authors: Won Yong Shon; Todd Baldini; Margaret G Peterson; Timothy M Wright; Eduardo A Salvati Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: Mayur Chawda; Peter Hucker; Sarah L Whitehouse; Ross W Crawford; Hugh English; William J Donnelly Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2008-12-04 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: Brian P Chalmers; Cameron K Ledford; Michael J Taunton; Rafael J Sierra; David G Lewallen; Robert T Trousdale Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2017-12-06 Impact factor: 4.757