Literature DB >> 7702322

Current attitudes to cementing techniques in British hip surgery.

A Hashemi-Nejad1, N C Birch, N J Goddard.   

Abstract

Aseptic loosening is the major problem in hip joint replacement. Improved cementing techniques have been shown to improve the long-term survival of implants significantly. To assess the use of modern cementing techniques in British surgeons, a detailed questionnaire was sent to all Fellows of The British Orthopaedic Association (BOA) regarding cement preparation, bone preparation, cementing technique and prostheses used in total hip arthroplasty. Excluding retired fellows, surgeons who use no cement, and those who had filled in forms inadequately, 668 responded, who between them performed 43,680 hip arthroplasties per year. In this survey, 21 different types of hip prostheses were implanted by the surgeons; 48% of hips implanted were Charnley type. Of the surgeons, 46% used Palacos with gentamicin as their cement for both the femur and acetabulum. For the femur, 44% of surgeons remove all cancellous bone, 40% use pulse lavage, 59% use a brush to clear debris, 94% dry the femur, 97% plug the femur, 76% use a cement gun and 70% pressurise the cement. For the acetabulum, 88% of surgeons retain the subchondral bone, 40% use pulse lavage, 100% dry the acetabulum, 22% use hypotensive anaesthesia and 58% pressurise the cement. Overall only 25% of surgeons (26% of hips implanted) use 'modern' cementing techniques. This has implications for the number of arthroplasties that may require early revision.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1994        PMID: 7702322      PMCID: PMC2502283     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl        ISSN: 0035-8843            Impact factor:   1.891


  10 in total

1.  The effect of improved cementing techniques on component loosening in total hip replacement. An 11-year radiographic review.

Authors:  R D Mulroy; W H Harris
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1990-09

2.  Effect of femoral head size on wear of the polyethylene acetabular component.

Authors:  J Livermore; D Ilstrup; B Morrey
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1990-04       Impact factor: 5.284

3.  Size of the femoral head and acetabular revision in total hip-replacement arthroplasty.

Authors:  B F Morrey; D Ilstrup
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1989-01       Impact factor: 5.284

4.  Modern use of modern cement for total hip replacement.

Authors:  W H Harris; J P Davies
Journal:  Orthop Clin North Am       Date:  1988-07       Impact factor: 2.472

5.  Total hip and knee replacements: a survey of 261 hospitals in England.

Authors:  K J Newman
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  1993-09       Impact factor: 5.344

6.  One step back; two steps forward.

Authors:  W H Harris
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1993-07       Impact factor: 5.284

7.  A ten-year follow-up of one hundred consecutive Müller curved-stem total hip-replacement arthroplasties.

Authors:  C J Sutherland; A H Wilde; L S Borden; K E Marks
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1982-09       Impact factor: 5.284

8.  Radiographic comparison of cementing techniques in total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  D W Roberts; R Poss; K Kelley
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  1986       Impact factor: 4.757

9.  Long-term results of Charnley low-friction arthroplasty in young patients.

Authors:  A B Joshi; M L Porter; I A Trail; L P Hunt; J C Murphy; K Hardinge
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1993-07

10.  The outcome of Charnley total hip arthroplasty with cement after a minimum twenty-year follow-up. The results of one surgeon.

Authors:  K R Schulte; J J Callaghan; S S Kelley; R C Johnston
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1993-07       Impact factor: 5.284

  10 in total
  9 in total

1.  How long should patients be followed-up after total hip replacement? Current practice in the UK.

Authors:  M J Bankes; R Coull; B D Ferris
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 1.891

2.  Current attitudes to total hip replacement in the younger patient: results of a national survey.

Authors:  T D Tennent; N J Goddard
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 1.891

3.  [The influence of jet-lavage systems on in vitro cement penetration].

Authors:  C-R Becker; B Lehner; S Ungethüm; S J Breusch
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 1.087

4.  Primary total hip replacement: variations in patient management in Oxford & Anglia, Trent, Yorkshire & Northern 'regions'.

Authors:  R W Morris; R Fitzpatrick; S Hajat; B C Reeves; D W Murray; D Hannen; M Rigge; O Williams; P J Gregg
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 1.891

5.  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

6.  Current practice in primary total hip replacement: results from the National Hip Replacement Outcome Project.

Authors:  A J Best; D Fender; W M Harper; A W McCaskie; K Oliver; P J Gregg
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 1.891

7.  Timing of femoral prosthesis insertion during cemented arthroplasty: cement curing and static mechanical strength in an in vivo model.

Authors:  Stephen Hunt; Craig Stone; Shane Seal
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 2.089

8.  Current techniques in total knee replacement: results of a national survey.

Authors:  A M Phillips; N J Goddard; J E Tomlinson
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  1996-11       Impact factor: 1.891

9.  Evaluating new surgical procedures. Hip replacements come in at least 10(11) varieties.

Authors:  D J Pegg
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1996-03-09
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.