In vitro cyclic testing of the Exeter stem after cement within cement revision

Multi-centre study of cement-in-cement and in-cement femoral revision total hip arthroplasty using polished, stainless steel stems

BACKGROUND

Exposure of the acetabular component during revision total hip arthroplasty is often difficult and stems are often difficult to remove. Polished and tapered cemented stems are easily removed and can be easily reconstructed by either cement-in-cement or in-cement technique. This study was a retrospective review of the medium-term outcomes of revision total hip arthroplasty conducted with the Exeter stem fixed by cement-in-cement or in-cement method in four institutions.

METHODS

This study included hips (n = 103) reconstructed by cement-in-cement or in-cement technique on the femoral side during revision total hip arthroplasty in four institutions between 2003 and 2015. The mean age at surgery was 71.1 years (range, 43-86 years), and the mean follow-up period was 5.6 years (range, 0-13 years).

RESULTS

Revision arthroplasty was required for acetabular component complications in 69 hips, for dislocation in 25, for infection in eight, and for stem fracture in one hip. Re-revision was required in 10 hips for: infection (n = 6), acetabular component complications (n = 3), and dislocation (n = 1). No radiographic loosening, cement fractures, or osteolysis of the femoral components were observed. Ten-year survival rate was 99% with the endpoint of femoral revision surgery, and 100% with the endpoint of femoral aseptic loosening.

CONCLUSIONS

The medium-term outcomes of revision total hip arthroplasty on the femoral side conducted using the cement-in-cement or in-cement technique were favourable, with no cases of aseptic loosening. As long as the bone-cement interface remains robust, there is no need to remove all the cement, and the cement-in-cement or in-cement technique should be used for reconstruction.

Cement-in-cement revision of the femur in infected hip arthroplasty in 89 patients across two centres

AIMS

Femoral cement-in-cement revision is a well described technique to reduce morbidity and complications in hip revision surgery. Traditional techniques for septic revision of hip arthroplasty necessitate removal of all bone cement from the femur. In our two centres, we have been using a cement-in-cement technique, leaving the distal femoral bone cement in selected patients for septic hip revision surgery, both for single and the first of two-stage revision procedures. A prerequisite for adoption of this technique is that the surgeon considers the cement mantle to be intimately fixed to bone without an intervening membrane between cement and host bone. We aim to report our experience for this technique.

METHODS

We have analyzed patients undergoing this cement-in-cement technique for femoral revision in infection, and present a consecutive series of 89 patients. Follow-up was undertaken at a mean of 56.5 months (24.0 to 134.7) for the surviving cases.

RESULTS

Seven patients (7.9%) required further revision for infection. Ten patients died of causes unrelated to their infection before their two-year review (mean 5.9 months; 0.9 to 18.6). One patient was lost to follow-up at five months after surgery, and two patients died of causes unrelated to their hip shortly after their two-year review was due without attending. Of the remaining patients, 69 remained infection-free at final review. Radiological review confirms the mechanical success of the procedure as previously described in aseptic revision, and postoperative Oxford Hip Scores suggest satisfactory functional outcomes.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, we found that retaining a well-fixed femoral cement mantle in the presence of infection and undertaking a cement-in-cement revision was successful in 82 of the patients (92.1%) in our series of 89, both in terms of eradication of infection and component fixation. These results are comparable to other more invasive techniques and offer significant potential benefits to the patient. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(2):212-220.

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

Background

Clinical outcomes of cemented femoral stems revisions using the cement-in-cement technique in aseptic conditions after total hip arthroplasty have been widely described.

Methods

The US National Library of Medicine (PubMed/MEDLINE), EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were queried.

Results

Twelve articles were included (620 revision THA). Revision rate for complications related to the femoral side was 1.4% at mid-term follow-up (5.4 years). Periprosthetic femoral fracture rate was 1.1%, aseptic loosening of the femoral component 0.3%.

Conclusions

Cement-in-cement revision technique of the femoral component is associated with a high mid-term success rates (98.6%) and is potentially less challenging than other revision techniques.

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

This study compares the strength of the native bone-cement bond and the old-new cement bond under cyclic loading, using third generation cementing technique, rasping and contamination of the surface of the old cement with biological tissue. The possible advantages of additional drilling of the cement surface is also taken into account. Femoral heads from 21 patients who underwent a total hip arthroplasty performed for hip arthritis were used to prepare bone-cement samples. The following groups of samples were prepared. A bone—cement sample and a composite sample of a 6 weeks old cement part attached to new cement were tested 24 hours after preparation to avoid bone decay. Additionally, a uniform cement sample was prepared as control (6 weeks polymerization time) and 2 groups of cement-cement samples with and without anchoring drill hole on its surface, where the old cement polymerized for 6 weeks before preparing composite samples and then another 6 weeks after preparation. The uniaxial cyclic tension-compression tests were carried out using the Zwick-Roell Z020 testing machine. The uniform cement sample had the highest ultimate force of all specimens (n = 15; R_m = 3149 N). The composite cement sample (n = 15; R_m = 902 N) had higher ultimate force as the bone-cement sample (n = 31; R_m = 284 N; p <0.001). There were no significant differences between composite samples with 24 hours (n = 15; R_m = 902 N) and 6 weeks polymerization periods (n = 22; R_m = 890 N; p = 0.93). The composite cement samples with drill hole (n = 16; R_m = 607 N) were weaker than those without it (n = 22; R_m = 890 N; p < 0.001). This study shows that the bond between the old and new cement was stronger than the bond between cement and bone. This suggests that it is better to leave the cement that is not loosened from the bone and perform cement in cement revision, than compromising bone stock by removal of the old cement with the resulting weaker cement-bone interface. The results support performing cement-in-cement revision arthroplasty The drill holes in the old cement mantle decrease cement binding strength and are not recommended in this type of surgery.

Impact of a double-layer cementing technique on the homogeneity of cementation and the generation of loose bone cement fragments in tibial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

Background

The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of a single- vs. double-layer cementing technique on morphological cementation and the generation of microscopic cement layers or loose cement fragments in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA).

Methods

UKAs were implanted in 12 cadaver knees. The specimens were divided into two groups of comparable bone mineral density. Six UKAs were implanted using a single-layer cementing technique (group A) and six UKAs were implanted using a double-layer cementing technique (group B). Morphological cementation was assessed on nine cuts through the implant–cement–bone interface in the frontal plane. Loose bone cement fragments and the microscopically quality of layer formation were evaluated.

Results

Contact between bone and prosthesis was observed in 45.4% of interfaces in group A and 27.8% in group B (p = 0.126). The significant increase of areas without visible cement interlocking in the anteroposterior direction in group A (p = 0.005) was not evident in group B (p = 0.262). Penetration around the peg tended to occur more frequently in group B (67.5% vs. 90.6% p = 0.091). Scanning electron microscopy identified no evidence of fissure formations within the bilaminar cement mantle. Free bone cement fragments were documented in 66.7% in both groups with no difference concerning mass (p = 1.0).

Conclusions

This in-vitro study showed a tendency towards a more homogenous cementation of tibial UKAs using a double-layer cementing technique, although most of the differences did not reach the level of significance. However, theoretical downsides of the double-layer cementing technique such as an increased formation of free bone fragments or a microscopically fissure formation within the cement layer could not be detected either.

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

Objectives

Previous studies have evidenced cement-in-cement techniques as reliable in revision arthroplasty. Commonly, the original cement mantle is reshaped, aiding accurate placement of the new stem. Ultrasonic devices selectively remove cement, preserve host bone, and have lower cortical perforation rates than other techniques. As far as the authors are aware, the impact of ultrasonic devices on final cement-in-cement bonds has not been investigated. This study assessed the impact of cement removal using the Orthosonics System for Cemented Arthroplasty Revision (OSCAR; Orthosonics) on final cement-in-cement bonds.

Methods

A total of 24 specimens were manufactured by pouring cement (Simplex P Bone Cement; Stryker) into stainless steel moulds, with a central rod polished to Stryker Exeter V40 specifications. After cement curing, the rods were removed and eight specimens were allocated to each of three internal surface preparation groups: 1) burr; 2) OSCAR; and 3) no treatment. Internal holes were recemented, and each specimen was cut into 5 mm discs. Shear testing of discs was completed by a technician blinded to the original grouping, recording ultimate shear strengths. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was completed, inspecting surfaces of shear-tested specimens.

Results

The mean shear strength for OSCAR-prepared specimens (33.6 MPa) was significantly lower than for the control (46.3 MPa) and burr (45.8 MPa) groups (p < 0.001; one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Tukey’s post hoc analysis). There was no significant difference in shear strengths between control and burr groups (p = 0.57). Scanning electron microscopy of OSCAR specimens revealed evidence of porosity undiscovered in previous studies.

Conclusion

Results show that the cement removal technique impacts on final cement-in-cement bonds. This in vitro study demonstrates significantly weaker bonds when using OSCAR prior to recementation into an old cement mantle compared with cement prepared with a burr or no treatment. This infers that care must be taken in surgical decision-making regarding cement removal techniques used during cement-in-cement revision arthroplasty, suggesting that the risks and benefits of ultrasonic cement removal need consideration.

Cite this article: A. Liddle, M. Webb, N. Clement, S. Green, J. Liddle, M. German, J. Holland. Ultrasonic cement removal in cement-in-cement revision total hip arthroplasty: What is the effect on the final cement-in-cement bond? Bone Joint Res 2019;8:246–252. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.86.BJR-2018-0313.R1.

The Outcome of 69 Recemented Hip Femoral Prostheses Performed by One Surgeon 22-40 Years Ago

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of long-term data on cement-in-cement technique in revision of failed hip femoral stem.

METHODS

We present the outcome of 69 consecutive recemented femoral prostheses, performed by one surgeon (GH) 22-40 years ago. Four patients (4 hips) were lost to follow-up. Sixty-three patients (65 hips) were followed for their lifetime or until the time of the preparation of the study. The study population consisted of 18 failed hemiarthroplasties and 47 failed total hip arthroplasties.

RESULTS

The 23-year probability of survival for the recemented femoral components, with re-revision for any reason and resection arthroplasty as the end point, was 73.6% (61.8%-85.4%) and, with re-revision for aseptic loosening as the end point, was 82.2% (71.4%-93%).

CONCLUSION

Our follow-up study at 22-40 years, after recemented hip femoral prostheses, shows that recementing works well in selected cases.

Cement brand and preparation effects cement-in-cement mantle shear strength

Creating bi-laminar cement mantles as part of revision hip arthroplasty is well-documented but there is a lack of data concerning the effect of cement brand on the procedure. The aim of this study was to compare the shear strength of bi-laminar cement mantles using various combinations of two leading bone cement brands.Bi-laminar cement mantles were created using Simplex P with Tobramycin, and Palacos R+G: Simplex-Simplex (SS); Simplex-Palacos (SP); Palacos-Simplex (PS); and Palacos-Palacos (PP). Additionally, specimens were produced by rasping (R) the surface of the original mantle, or leaving it unrasped (U), leading to a total of eight groups (n = 10). Specimens were loaded in shear, at 0.1 mm/min, until failure, and the maximum shear strength calculated.The highest mean shear strength was found in the PSU and PSR groups (23.69 and 23.89 MPa respectively), and the lowest in the PPU group (14.70 MPa), which was significantly lower than all but two groups. Unrasped groups generally demonstrated greater standard error than rasped groups.In a further comparison to assess the effect of the new cement mantle brand, irrespective of the brand of the original mantle, Simplex significantly increased the shear strength compared to Palacos with equivalent preparation.It is recommended that the original mantle is rasped prior to injection of new cement, and that Simplex P with Tobramycin be used in preference to Palacos R+G irrespective of the existing cement type. Further research is needed to investigate more cement brands, and understand the underlying mechanisms relating to cement-in-cement procedures.

Cement-in-cement revision for selected Vancouver Type B1 femoral periprosthetic fractures: a biomechanical analysis

The aim of this study was to perform a biomechanical analysis of the cement-in-cement (c-in-c) technique for fixation of selected Vancouver Type B1 femoral periprosthetic fractures and to assess the degree of cement interposition at the fracture site. Six embalmed cadaveric femora were implanted with a cemented femoral stem. Vancouver Type B1 fractures were created by applying a combined axial and rotational load to failure. The femora were repaired using the c-in-c technique and reloaded to failure. The mean primary fracture torque was 117 Nm (SD 16.6, range 89-133). The mean revision fracture torque was 50 Nm (SD 16.6, range 29-74), which is above the torque previously observed for activities of daily living. Cement interposition at the fracture site was found to be minimal.

The mechanical effect of the existing cement mantle on the in-cement femoral revision

BACKGROUND

Cement-in-cement revision hip arthroplasty is an increasingly popular technique to replace a loose femoral stem which retains much of the original cement mantle. However, some concern exists regarding the retention of the existing fatigued and aged cement in such cement-in-cement revisions. This study investigates whether leaving an existing fatigued and aged cement mantle degrades the mechanical performance of a cement-in-cement revision construct.

METHODS

Primary cement mantles were formed by cementing a polished stem into sections of tubular steel. If in the test group, the mantle underwent conditioning in saline to simulate ageing and was subject to a fatigue of 1 million cycles. If in the control group no such conditioning or fatigue was carried out. The cement-in-cement procedure was then undertaken. Both groups underwent a fatigue of 1 million cycles subsequent to the revision procedure.

FINDINGS

Application of a Mann-Whitney test on the recorded subsidence (means: 0.51, 0.46, n=10+10, P=0.496) and inducible displacement (means: 0.38, 0.36, P=0.96) revealed that there was no statistical difference between the groups.

INTERPRETATION

This study represents further biomechanical investigation of the mechanical behaviour of cement-in-cement revision constructs. Results suggest that pre-revision fatigue and ageing of the cement may not be deleterious to the mechanical performance of the revision construct. Thus, this study provides biomechanical evidence to back-up recent successes with this useful revision technique.

The effect of surface finish and interstitial fluid on the cement-in-cement interface in revision surgery of the hip

The mechanical performance of the cement-in-cement interface in revision surgery has not been fully investigated. The quantitative effect posed by interstitial fluids and roughening of the primary mantle remains unclear. We have analysed the strength of the bilaminar cement-bone interface after exposure of the surface of the primary mantle to roughening and fluid interference. The end surfaces of cylindrical blocks of cement were machined smooth (Ra = 200 nm) or rough (Ra = 5 μm) and exposed to either different volumes of water and carboxymethylcellulose (a bone-marrow equivalent) or left dry. Secondary blocks were cast against the modelled surface. Monoblocks of cement were used as a control group. The porosity of the samples was investigated using micro-CT. Samples were exposed to a single shearing force to failure.

The mean failure load of the monoblock control was 5.63 kN (95% confidence interval (CI) 5.17 to 6.08) with an estimated shear strength of 36 MPa. When small volumes of any fluid or large volumes were used, the respective values fell between 4.66 kN and 4.84 kN with no significant difference irrespective of roughening (p > 0.05). Large volumes of carboxymethylcellulose significantly weakened the interface. Roughening in this group significantly increased the strength with failure loads of 2.80 kN (95% CI 2.37 to 3.21) compared with 0.86 kN (95% CI 0.43 to 1.27) in the smooth variant. Roughening of the primary mantle may not therefore be as crucial as has been previously thought in clinically relevant circumstances.