Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2009 Jun;95(4):243-8. doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2009.04.007. Epub 2009 Jun 11.

Primary aseptic revision of the femoral component of a cemented total hip arthroplasty using a cemented technique without bone graft.

Author information

  • 1Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology Department, Bordeaux Teaching Hospital Center, Bordeaux, France. bardou jacquet julien@yahoo.fr

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Primary revisions using cement without bone graft reconstruction are less frequently used because of their supposed higher failure rate. The results, in fact, depend on multiple parameters: number of prior revisions, cementing technique quality, and residual bone stock; these intricate factors are rarely taken together into account when analyzing this treatment method.

HYPOTHESIS:

Femoral component fixation with cement can be a valid option in total hip arthroplasty primary revision.

OBJECTIVES:

The objective of this investigation was to study the long-term results of cemented femoral stems in total hip arthroplasty primary revisions in terms of the quality of the cementing technique and the residual bone stock.

PATIENTS AND METHODS:

This is a retrospective study of a series of 80-cemented primary femoral stems revised for aseptic loosening using a new-cemented femoral stem without bone graft. Seventy implants were analyzed at the longest follow-up. The Postel Merle D'Aubigné and the Harris Hip Scores were used for clinical assessment. The French Academy SOFCOT 99 bone loss grading system was used to classify preoperative bone compromise severity. The Barrack classification assessed the quality of the postoperative cementation. The radiographic study at the last follow-up sought signs of femoral implant loosening classified according to Harris.

RESULTS:

The mean follow-up was 10 years and 10 months. The functional evaluation of the hip showed a significant overall gain (p<0.0001) after surgical revision. In our series, the existence of severe grade III or IV bone loss on the SOFCOT 99 classification exposed the patient to a significant risk of intraoperative complications (p=0.03). The grade III and IV femurs had a significantly higher risk (p=0.0001) of having type C or D cementation according to the Barrack classification. Type D cementation was a risk factor for significant iterative radiographic loosening (p=0.005) compared to A, B or C cementations. The 10-year survival rate of the femoral implant was 90% (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 79.2-94.9%). This survival rate was significantly better (p=0.0016) for revisions with type A or B cementations on the Barrack scale (96% survival; 95% CI: 85.1-99%) than for type C or D (70% survival; 95% CI: 41.4-86.1%).

CONCLUSION:

This study shows that revised cemented femoral stems without bone graft added are a valid therapeutic option in primary cemented total hip arthroplasty revisions provided that a good-quality cement technique can be achieved. Sufficient bone stock (SOFCOT 99 grade 0, I or II) was indispensable for good cementation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:

IV: therapeutic retrospective study.

PMID:
19523892
DOI:
10.1016/j.otsr.2009.04.007
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Free full text
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Elsevier Science
    Loading ...
    Support Center