Chronic slowly progressive monoarthritis tuberculosis of the hip without systemic symptoms mimicking osteoarthritis: a case report

[Current design and cement mantle thickness in hip arthroplasty : Theory and analysis of register data]

BACKGROUND

In this article, an overview and comparison of the most commonly used cemented hip stems, grouped into different stem types and cement mantle thickness, is given to see which combination performs well.

METHODOLOGY

Revision rates of cemented stem types were categorized from the Endoprosthesis Register-Germany, and 3‑ and 5‑year revision rates were reported and analyzed. For the research, the focus was on the Exeter, C‑Stem, MS-30, Excia, Bicontact, Charnley, Müller straight stem, Twinsys, Corail, Avenir, Quadra, and the Lubinus SP II stems. An important aspect was which stem is preferred to be implanted and which cementing technique is used with regard to the planned cement mantle thickness. In order to identify a trend in cemented hip arthroplasty, data from the Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, Swiss, New Zealand, English and Australian arthroplasty registers were also compared.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

Most countries use cemented prostheses according to the taper slip principle (Exeter, MS30, C‑Stem etc) or the composite beam (Charnley, Excia, Bicontact), which are implanted with a cement mantle thickness of 2-4 mm. However, a trend has emerged in Germany and Switzerland towards the line-to-line technique, with a planned cement mantle thickness of 1 mm (Twinsys, Corail, Avenir, Quadra), following the principle of the Müller straight stem prosthesis and the Kerboul-Charnley prosthesis, even though these are postulated to be "French paradoxes" in themselves. In the EPRD 5‑year results, the newer line-to-line prostheses seem to perform slightly worse. The best results are achieved by the "MS 30" in Germany and the "Exeter" in England. These are polished straight stems with centralizer and subsidence space at the apex with a 2-4 mm cement mantle in good cementing technique.