Cement-in-cement femoral revisions using a specially designed polished short revision stem; 24 consecutive stems followed for five to seven years

Open Reduction and Internal Fixation and Cement-In-Cement Revision for Selected Vancouver B Proximal Femur Periprosthetic Fractures

The incidence of periprosthetic proximal femoral fractures is increasing with the increase in arthroplasty being performed as well as aging populations. We describe an open reduction and internal fixation and cement-in-cement technique utilizing a well-fixed cement mantle. The advantages of this allow for a shorter operative time, reduction in risk of iatrogenic femoral fractures, and reduction in blood loss. This was a retrospective study reviewing 20 patients that underwent this technique for periprosthetic fractures. Thirty percent (n = 6) of patients underwent subsequent surgery. We had a 95% (n = 19) union rate with 1 case refracturing through the old fracture. This technique can allow for shorter operative times and a lower physiological insult in reducible periprosthetic proximal femur fractures with a stable cement mantle.

Cement-in-cement femoral component revision : a comparison of two different taper-slip designs with medium-term follow up

AIMS

Cement-in-cement revision of the femoral component represents a widely practised technique for a variety of indications in revision total hip arthroplasty. In this study, we compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of two polished tapered femoral components.

METHODS

From our prospectively collated database, we identified all patients undergoing cement-in-cement revision from January 2005 to January 2013 who had a minimum of two years' follow-up. All cases were performed by the senior author using either an Exeter short revision stem or the C-Stem AMT high offset No. 1 prosthesis. Patients were followed-up annually with clinical and radiological assessment.

RESULTS

A total of 97 patients matched the inclusion criteria (50 Exeter and 47 C-Stem AMT components). There were no significant differences between the patient demographic data in either group. Mean follow-up was 9.7 years. A significant improvement in Oxford Hip Score (OHS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and 12-item Short-Form Survey (SF-12) scores was observed in both cohorts. Leg lengths were significantly shorter in the Exeter group, with a mean of -4 mm in this cohort compared with 0 mm in the C-Stem AMT group. One patient in the Exeter group had early evidence of radiological loosening. In total, 16 patients (15%) underwent further revision of the femoral component (seven in the C-Stem AMT group and nine in the Exeter group). No femoral components were revised for aseptic loosening. There were two cases of femoral component fracture in the Exeter group.

CONCLUSION

Our series shows promising mid-term outcomes for the cement-in-cement revision technique using either the Exeter or C-Stem AMT components. These results demonstrate that cement-in-cement revision using a double or triple taper-slip design is a safe and reliable technique when used for the correct indications. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(7):1215-1221.

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.

The cement-in-cement technique is a reliable option in hip arthroplasty revision surgery: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

The cement-in-cement technique for revision hip arthroplasty has many potential advantages and has recently gained widespread interest but still lacks evidence to support it. Our aim was to examine the surgical and patient-reported outcomes after cement-in-cement revision hip arthroplasty.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched up to February 2019 for original studies reporting the outcomes of revision hip arthroplasty surgeries using the cement-in-cement technique. The methodological quality was assessed using the methodological index for non-randomized studies scale.

RESULTS

Sixteen non-comparative studies met the eligibility criteria, comprising 1899 hips in 1856 patients (72.2 mean age, 37% male), with a mean follow-up of 7.2 years. Most studies reported only primary revisions and focused on the stem component. Intraoperative complications such as femoral or acetabular fractures (5.3%) were low and easily manageable with no relevant sequelae, as were dislocation rates (2.8% of uncomplicated events and 1.6% of cases requiring re-revision). Failure (considered if there was aseptic loosening of the cement-in-cement revised component, 2%), re-revision (9.3%), implant survival and late complication rates were favourable. Functional patient-reported outcomes showed an overall improvement above the minimal clinically important difference at final follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The cement-in-cement technique is a viable option for hip arthroplasty revision surgery with low intraoperative and late complication rates, dislocations and immediate post-operative morbidity, resulting in good functional patient-reported outcomes and favourable medium-term implant survival.

Cement-in-cement revision with the Exeter Short Revision Stem: A review of 50 consecutive hips

Revision of a well-fixed cemented femoral stem is technically challenging. The Exeter Short Revision Stem (SRS) was developed to facilitate cement-in-cement revision mitigating some of these challenges. We present the short to mid-term results of 50 cement-in-cement revisions performed with this implant. A retrospective review of all cement-in-cement revision with the Exeter SRS, at our institution, over a seven-year period between 2007 and 2014 was conducted. Records were assessed for radiological and clinical component loosening at greater than 12 months follow-up and for revision and complications at all time points. An Oxford Hip Score (OHS) and Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) for groin and thigh pain at rest and initial mobilisation were obtained. 50 implants in 46 patients were identified. Radiographic and clinical follow-up was available for 42 and 38 implants respectively at greater than 12 months. Mean radiographic follow-up was 5.1 years and clinical 4.9 years. There was no radiographic or clinical evidence of loosening. 3 revisions were performed, one for each of recurrent dislocation, infection and stem breakage. Median OHS was 39 (IQR 12) and mean NRS for groin pain at rest and initial mobilisation was 1.7 and 1.7 respectively and NRS for thigh pain at rest and initial mobilisation was 1.3 and 1.6 respectively with mean follow-up of 6.9 years. The Exeter SRS provides a viable option for cement-in-cement stem revision, with low revision, complication and loosening rates and good patient reported outcomes at short to mid-term follow up.

The Exeter Short Revision Stem for Cement-in-Cement Femoral Revision: A Five to Twelve Year Review

BACKGROUND

Cement-in-cement femoral revision is a proven technique in revision total hip arthroplasty, with excellent results reported using standard-sized Exeter stems. The Exeter 44/00/125 short revision stem was introduced in 2004 to facilitate cement-in-cement revision. The stem is 25-mm shorter and has a slimmer body than standard stems to facilitate adjustment of depth of insertion and stem version. It is not known if this change in stem size affects its long-term performance. We therefore reviewed the outcome of all Exeter short revision stems used for cement-in-cement revision in our unit, with a minimum of 5 years of follow-up.

METHOD

One hundred sixty-six cases were performed between 2004 and 2010. Mean follow-up of surviving patients was 8.1 years (range 5.0-11.7). The fate of all 166 hips were known and included in the survival analysis.

RESULTS

Median clinical scores improved significantly. Sixteen hips required re-revision (infection 6, loose cup 3, periprosthetic fracture 3, instability 2, stem fracture with chronic infection 1, and pain 1). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis at 10 years revealed 100% survival for aseptic stem loosening, 96.8% survival for stem failure, and 88.9% survival for all causes.

CONCLUSION

The Exeter short revision stem performed as well as standard length stems for cement-in-cement revision in this the largest and longest review of their use. Larger registry-based studies may provide additional information on the performance of this stem.

Techniques for the Management of Failed Surgery for Fractures of the Neck of Femur

Background:

The majority of modern surgical treatments for managing hip fracture in the elderly are successful and result in a very low rate of revision surgery. Subsequent operations are however occasionally necessary. Optimal management of complications such as infection, dislocation or failed fixation is critical in ensuring that this frail patient group is able to survive their treatment and return to near normal function.

Methods:

This paper is a discussion of techniques, tips and tricks from a high volume hip fracture unit

Conclusion:

This article is a technique-based guide to approaching the surgical management of failed hip fracture treatment and includes sections on revising both failed fixation and failed arthroplasty.

Satisfactory Results of the Exeter Revision Femoral Stem Used for Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

The Exeter cemented femoral stem has demonstrated excellent clinical and radiographic outcomes as well as long-term survivorship free from aseptic loosening. A shorter revision stem (125 mm) with a 44 offset became available for the purpose of cement-in-cement revision situations. In certain cases, this shorter revision stem may be used for various primary total hip arthroplasties (THAs) where the standard length stem would require distally reaming the femoral canal. We sought to report on the early to midterm results of this specific stem when used for primary THA regarding (1) clinical and radiographic outcomes, (2) complications, and (3) survivorship.

METHODS

Twenty-nine patients (33 hips) underwent a hybrid THA using the smaller revision Exeter cemented femoral stem. Twenty-five patients (28 hips) had at least 2 years of follow-up and were assessed for clinical and radiographic outcomes. All 33 hips were included in the analysis of complications and survivorship. The Kaplan-Meier survivorship was performed using revision for all causes and for aseptic loosening as the end points.

RESULTS

The average clinical follow-up was 4 years (range, 2-7). Harris Hip Scores improved from a mean preoperative value of 56 (range, 23-96) to 90 (range, 51-100) at the latest follow-up. All patients demonstrated superior cement mantles with no signs of loosening. One patient suffered a B2 periprosthetic fracture and 1 patient experienced 2 episodes of instability. The 5-year Kaplan-Meier survivorship was 96.7% for all causes of revision and was 100% using aseptic loosening as the end point.

CONCLUSION

The shorter Exeter revision cemented femoral stem has favorable early to midterm clinical and radiographic outcomes when used for primary THA with a low complication rate and is a viable option in patients with narrow femoral canals where uncemented stem fixation is not desired.

Implant survival of the most common cemented total hip devices from the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association database

Background and purpose - According to previous Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) data, the 10-year implant survival of cemented total hip arthroplasties (THAs) is 94% in patients aged 65-74 and 96% in patients aged 75 or more. Here we report a brand-level comparison of cemented THA based on the NARA database, which has not been done previously. Patients and methods - We determined the rate of implant survival of the 9 most common cemented THAs in the NARA database. We used Kaplan-Meier analysis with 95% CI to study implant survival at 10 and 15 years, and Cox multiple regression to assess survival and hazard ratios (HRs), with revision for any reason as endpoint and with adjustment for age, sex, diagnosis, and femoral head material. Results - Spectron EF THA (89.9% (CI: 89.3-90.5)) and Elite THA (89.8% (CI: 89.0-90.6)) had the lowest 10-year survivorship. Lubinus (95.7% survival, CI: 95.5-95.9), MS 30 (96.6%, CI: 95.8-97.4), and C-stem THA (95.8%, CI: 94.8-96.8) had a 10-year survivorship of at least 95%. Lubinus (revision risk (RR) = 0.77, CI: 0.73-0.81), Müller (RR =0.83, CI: 0.70-0.99), MS-30 (RR =0.73, CI: 0.63-0.86), C-stem (RR =0.70, CI: 0.55-0.90), and Exeter Duration THA (RR =0.84, CI: 0.77-0.90) had a lower risk of revision than Charnley THA, the reference implant. Interpretation - The Spectron EF THA and the Elite THA had a lower implant survival than the Charnley, Exeter, and Lubinus THAs. Implant survival of the Müller, MS 30, CPT, and C-stem THAs was above the acceptable limit for 10-year survival.

Predictors of unsuccessful outcome in cemented femoral revisions using bone impaction grafting; Cox regression analysis of 208 cases

INTRODUCTION

Despite improvements in the technique of femoral impaction bone grafting, reconstruction failures still can occur. Therefore, the aim of our study was to determine risk factors for the endpoint re-revision for any reason.

METHODS

We used prospectively collected demographic, clinical and surgical data of all 202 patients who underwent 208 femoral revisions using the X-change Femoral Revision System (Stryker-Howmedica), fresh-frozen morcellised allograft and a cemented polished Exeter stem in our department from 1991 to 2007. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression analyses were performed to identify potential factors associated with re-revision.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up was 10.6 (5-21) years. The cumulative re-revision rate was 6.3% (13/208). After univariable selection, sex, age, body mass index (BMI), American Association of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, type of removed femoral component, and mesh used for reconstruction were included in multivariable regression analysis.In the multivariable analysis, BMI was the only factor that was significantly associated with the risk of re-revision after bone impaction grafting (BMI ≥30 vs. BMI &lt;30, HR = 6.54 [95% CI 1.89-22.65]; p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

BMI was the only factor associated with the risk of re-revision for any reason. Besides BMI also other factors, such as Endoklinik score and the type of removed femoral component, can provide guidance in the process of preclinical decision making. With the knowledge obtained from this study, preoperative patient selection, informed consent, and treatment protocols can be better adjusted to the individual patient who needs to undergo a femoral revision with impaction bone grafting.