Revision total hip replacement using the cement-in-cement technique for the acetabular component TECHNIQUE AND RESULTS FOR 60 HIPS

被引:11
作者
Brogan, K. [1 ]
Charity, J. [1 ]
Sheeraz, A. [1 ]
Whitehouse, S. L.
Timperley, A. J. [1 ]
Howell, J. R. [1 ]
Hubble, M. J. W. [1 ]
机构
[1] Royal Devon & Exeter NHS Fdn Trust, Princess Elizabeth Orthopaed Ctr, Exeter EX2 5DW, Devon, England
来源
JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-BRITISH VOLUME | 2012年 / 94B卷 / 11期
关键词
ARTHROPLASTY; STEM;
D O I
10.1302/0301-620X.94B11.29415
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
摘要
The technique of femoral cement-in-cement revision is well established, but there are no previous series reporting its use on the acetabular side at the time of revision total hip replacement. We describe the technique and report the outcome of 60 consecutive acetabular cement-in-cement revisions in 59 patients at a mean follow-up of 8.5 years (5 to 12). All had a radiologically and clinically well-fixed acetabular cement mantle at the time of revision. During the follow-up 29 patients died, but no hips were lost to follow-up. The two most common indications for acetabular revision were recurrent dislocation (46, 77%) and to complement femoral revision (12, 20%). Of the 60 hips, there were two cases of aseptic loosening of the acetabular component (3.3%) requiring re-revision. No other hip was clinically or radiologically loose (96.7%) at the latest follow-up. One hip was re-revised for infection, four for recurrent dislocation and one for disarticulation of a constrained component. At five years the Kaplan-Meier survival rate was 100% for aseptic loosening and 92.2% (95% CI 84.8 to 99.6), with revision for any cause as the endpoint. These results support the use of cement-in-cement revision on the acetabular side in appropriate cases. Theoretical advantages include preservation of bone stock, reduced operating time, reduced risk of complications and durable fixation.
引用
收藏
页码:1482 / 1486
页数:5
相关论文
共 26 条
[1]  
Bland M., 1995, INTRO MED STAT, V2, P396
[2]  
Charnley J, 1979, LOW FRICTION ARTHROP, P20
[3]  
DELEE JG, 1976, CLIN ORTHOP RELAT R, P20
[4]   Revision of the cemented femoral stem using a cement-in-cement technique A FIVE-TO 15-YEAR REVIEW [J].
Duncan, W. W. ;
Hubble, M. J. W. ;
Howell, J. R. ;
Whitehouse, S. L. ;
Timperley, A. J. ;
Gie, G. A. .
JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-BRITISH VOLUME, 2009, 91B (05) :577-582
[5]   18 years of results with cemented primary hip prostheses in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register Concerns about some newer implants [J].
Espehaug, Birgitte ;
Furnes, Ove ;
Engesaeter, Lars B. ;
Havelin, Leif I. .
ACTA ORTHOPAEDICA, 2009, 80 (04) :402-412
[6]   Effects of lamination on the strength of bone cement [J].
Flivik, G ;
Yuan, XH ;
Ryd, L ;
Juliusson, R ;
Lidgren, L .
ACTA ORTHOPAEDICA SCANDINAVICA, 1997, 68 (01) :55-58
[7]   POINTS IN TECHNIQUE OF RECEMENTING IN REVISION OF AN IMPLANT ARTHROPLASTY [J].
GREENWALD, AS ;
NARTEN, NC ;
WILDE, AH .
JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-BRITISH VOLUME, 1978, 60 (01) :107-110
[8]  
GRUEN TA, 1976, CLIN ORTHOP RELAT R, P250
[9]   Metal-backed acetabular components with conventional polyethylene A REVIEW OF 9113 PRIMARY COMPONENTS WITH A FOLLOW-UP OF 20 YEARS [J].
Hallan, G. ;
Dybvik, E. ;
Furnes, O. ;
Havelin, L. I. .
JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-BRITISH VOLUME, 2010, 92B (02) :196-201
[10]  
HODGKINSON JP, 1988, CLIN ORTHOP RELAT R, P105