Is a hollow centralizer necessary when using a polished, tapered, cemented femoral stem?

A prospective randomized study of Refobacin Bone Cement R versus Palacos R + G

Aims

Refobacin Bone Cement R and Palacos R + G bone cement were introduced to replace the original cement Refobacin Palacos R in 2005. Both cements were assumed to behave in a biomechanically similar fashion to the original cement. The primary aim of this study was to compare the migration of a polished triple-tapered femoral stem fixed with either Refobacin Bone Cement R or Palacos R + G bone cement. Repeated radiostereometric analysis was used to measure migration of the femoral head centre. The secondary aims were evaluation of cement mantle, stem positioning, and patient-reported outcome measures.

Methods

Overall, 75 patients were included in the study and 71 were available at two years postoperatively. Prior to surgery, they were randomized to one of the three combinations studied: Palacos cement with use of the Optivac mixing system, Refobacin with use of the Optivac system, and Refobacin with use of the Optipac system. Cemented MS30 stems and cemented Exceed acetabular components were used in all hips. Postoperative radiographs were used to assess the quality of the cement mantle according to Barrack et al, and the position and migration of the femoral stem. Harris Hip Score, Oxford Hip Score, Forgotten Joint Score, and University of California, Los Angeles Activity Scale were collected.

Results

Median distal migration (y-axis) at two years for the Refobacin-Optivac system was -0.79 mm (-2.01 to -0.09), for the Refobacin-Optipac system was -0.75 mm (-2.16 to 0.20), and for the Palacos-Optivac system was -1.01 mm (-4.31 to -0.29). No statistically significant differences were found between the groups. Secondary outcomes did not differ statistically between the groups at the two-year follow-up.

Conclusion

At two years, we found no significant differences in distal migration or clinical outcomes between the three groups. Our data indicate that Refobacin Bone Cement R and Palacos R + G are comparable in terms of stable fixation and early clinical outcomes.

Subsidence in Centraliser Sign: A Novel Tool to Help Predict Early Subsidence in Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures Around Polished Tapered Stems Treated With Internal Fixation

Background When treating periprosthetic femoral fractures (PPF) around polished taper slip stems (PTS), determining which patients can be successfully treated with internal fixation can be challenging. We have described the subsidence-in-centraliser (SINC) sign as a radiographic feature of PPF around PTS stems. We hypothesise that a positive SINC sign can help predict a poorer outcome for the fixation of these fractures. Patients and methods Retrospective identification of PPFs around cemented PTS with an appreciable centraliser on radiographs was conducted at a single centre. A positive SINC sign was defined as a post-injury radiograph demonstrating >50% reduction in the radiographic lucency representing the stem centraliser when compared to pre-injury films or complete obliteration of distal lucency when no pre-injury film was available. The primary outcome was the rate of subsequent stem subsidence on follow-up radiographs comparing SINC-positive and SINC-negative fractures, which were managed with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). Results Fifty-four patients were included in the analysis. The mean age was 76.8 years, and the mean follow-up for all patients was 12.7 months. Thirty-five fractures were deemed SINC-positive, and 19 were SINC-negative. 17/17 (100%) SINC-positive fractures managed with fixation underwent further subsidence (mean 5.4 mm, SD 2.8). A positive SINC sign demonstrated a sensitivity of 90.5% and specificity of 100% for subsequent stem subsidence in fractures treated without revision. SINC positive fractures underwent significantly more subsidence compared with SINC negative fractures when fixed (5.4 mm vs. 0.28 mm, U = 6.50, p<0.001) at a mean follow-up of 12.7 months. The SINC sign demonstrated strong inter- (k=0.96) and intra-rater (k=0.86) reliability. Conclusion The SINC sign can serve as a useful adjunct in the decision to fix or revise PPF around PTS. A positive SINC sign may represent a cement mantle that cannot be reconstituted anatomically, leading to subsidence after treatment with ORIF.

Imaging in Hip Arthroplasty Management Part 2: Postoperative Diagnostic Imaging Strategy

Hip arthroplasty (HA) is a frequently used procedure with high success rates, but 7% to 27% of the patients complain of persistent postsurgical pain 1 to 4 years post-operation. HA complications depend on the post-operative delay, the type of material used, the patient’s characteristics, and the surgical approach. Radiographs are still the first imaging modality used for routine follow-up, in asymptomatic and painful cases. CT and MRI used to suffer from metallic artifacts but are nowadays central in HA complications diagnosis, both having their advantages and drawbacks. Additionally, there is no consensus on the optimal imaging workup for HA complication diagnosis, which may have an impact on patient management. After a brief reminder about the different types of prostheses, this article reviews their normal and pathologic appearance, according to each imaging modality, keeping in mind that few abnormalities might be present, not anyone requiring treatment, depending on the clinical scenario. A diagnostic imaging workup is also discussed, to aid the therapist in his imaging studies prescription and the radiologist in their practical aspects.

The Effect of a Distal Centralizer on Cemented Femoral Stems in Arthroplasty Shown on Radiographs and SPECT/CT: A Case Report

CASE

A 70-year-old female patient underwent total hip arthroplasty (HA) using a stem cemented line-to-line without centralizer. Postoperatively, she complained of load-dependent thigh pain. Conventional radiographs identified cortical overload because of a distal cement mantle discontinuity at the level of the stem's tip, confirmed by single-photon emission computed tomography/computed tomography scan (SPECT/CT). After cement-in-cement revision using a stem with centralizer, pain ceased rapidly. The cortical overload disappeared, as confirmed on a following SPECT/CT performed for low back pain.

CONCLUSION

In HA, the stem's tip may cause overload on the bone's cortex if the cement mantle is incomplete. Implanting a stem with centralizer avoids or cures this.

Temporal subsidence patterns of cemented polished taper-slip stems: a systematic review

The literature was reviewed to establish the levels of stem subsidence for both double and triple-tapered implants in order to determine whether there were any differences in subsidence levels with regard to the methods of measurement, the magnitude and rate of subsidence and clinical outcomes.

All studies reporting subsidence of polished taper-slip stems were identified. Patient demographics, implant design, radiological findings, details of surgical technique, methods of measurement and levels of subsidence were collected to investigate which factors were related to increased subsidence.

Following application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, 28 papers of relevance were identified. The studies initially recruited 3090 hips with 2099 being available for radiological analysis at final follow-up. Patient age averaged 68 years (42–70), 60.4% were female and the average body mass index (BMI) was 27.4 kg/m² (24.1–29.2).

Mean subsidence at one, two, five and 10 years was 0.97 mm, 1.07 mm, 1.47 mm and 1.61 mm respectively. Although double-tapered stems subsided more than triple-tapered stems at all time points this was not statistically significant (p > 0.05), nor was the method of measurement used (p > 0.05).

We report the levels of subsidence at which clinical outcomes and survivorship remain excellent, but based on the literature it was not possible to determine a threshold of subsidence beyond which failure was more likely.

There were relatively few studies of triple-tapered stems, but given that there were no statistically significant differences, the levels presented in this review can be applied to both double and triple-tapered designs.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2021;6:331-342. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.200086

Femoral Stem Cementation in Hip Arthroplasty: The Know-How of a "Lost" Art

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To describe the (1) indications, (2) preoperative precautions, and (3) stepwise technical details of modern femoral stem cemented fixation.

RECENT FINDINGS

Femoral stem cementation provides excellent implant longevity with a low periprosthetic fracture rate among patients with compromised bone quality or aberrant anatomy. Unfamiliarity with the details of modern cementation techniques among trainees who may lack frequent exposure to cementing femoral stems may preclude them from offering this viable option to suitable patients in later stages of their careers. As such, maximizing benefit from cemented femoral stem fixation among suitable candidates is contingent upon the meticulous use of modern cementation techniques. In addition to proper patient selection, modern cementation techniques emphasize the use of (1) pulsatile lavage of the femoral canal, (2) utilization of epinephrine-soaked swabs, (3) vacuum cement mixing, (4) retrograde cement introduction, (5) cement pressurization, and (6) the use of stem centralizers. Furthermore, identifying and optimizing the preoperative status of at-risk patients with pre-existing cardiopulmonary compromise, in addition to intraoperative vigilance, are essential for mitigating the risk of developing bone cement implantation syndrome. Further research is required to assess the utility of cemented femoral stem fixation among younger patients.