Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Cement-in-cement femoral component revision : a comparison of two different taper-slip designs with medium-term follow up.
Kennedy, John W; Ng, Nigel Y B; Young, David; Kane, Nicholas; Marsh, Andrew G; Meek, R M Dominic.
Afiliação
  • Kennedy JW; Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, UK.
  • Ng NYB; Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, UK.
  • Young D; Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK.
  • Kane N; Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, UK.
  • Marsh AG; Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, UK.
  • Meek RMD; Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, UK.
Bone Joint J ; 103-B(7): 1215-1221, 2021 Jul.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34192939
ABSTRACT

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.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Desenho de Prótese / Reoperação / Artroplastia de Quadril / Prótese de Quadril Tipo de estudo: Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies Limite: Adult / Aged / Aged80 / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Desenho de Prótese / Reoperação / Artroplastia de Quadril / Prótese de Quadril Tipo de estudo: Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies Limite: Adult / Aged / Aged80 / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article