Use Of Cementless Research Articles

Medium-term outcome of the Libra® cemented versus cementless stems in primary dual mobility total hip arthroplasty

IntroductionDespite the increasing use of cementless stems in total hip arthroplasty, the cemented stem has played a valuable role in the armamentarium of orthopedic surgeons. This study aims to compare two types of Libra® stems SERF, one cemented (Libra® C) and the other cementless hydroxyapatite coated (Libra® HA) that were conducted to analyze the medium-term outcome regarding their behavior and longevity.MethodsThis is a retrospective study for patients who received primary total hip arthroplasty with Dual Mobility (DM) articulation in the period between January 2014 to January 2020 with a minimum of two years follow-up. Two-hundred hips have been identified in 196 patients. One hundred forty-three Libra® cementless versus fifty-seven Libra cemented stems were implanted and the outcome of these stems is reported. All procedures were performed through the posterior approach and cemented stems were selected for elderly patients with wide medullary canals Dorr Type C. The indications for the index procedure were fractures, avascular necrosis, rheumatoid, and osteoarthritis. One hundred thirty-nine cementless DM cups were used while sixty-one hips had cemented Novae stick cups. Radiological evaluation for cup and stem positions, cement mantle, and radiolucent lines was performed, besides clinical function using the Harris Hip Score.ResultsThe average age of patients was 60 ± 14.8. At the latest review, none of the cemented stems was revised or awaiting revision. One cementless stem was revised because of cortical perforation. Five intraoperative fractures were observed in the cementless group, but none of them needed revision or affected the stem stability. Readmission to theatre occurred in four patients to evacuate hematoma in two, a reduction of dislocation in one, and grafting bone lysis in one.ConclusionCemented stems have an important role in osteoporotic patients with wide medullary canals with excellent outcomes and minimal risk of fracture.Level of evidenceLevel IV.

Cementless Porous-Coated Metaphyseal Sleeves Used for Bone Defects in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: Short- to Mid-Term Outcomes.

While many studies have presented excellent short-term outcomes of the metaphyseal sleeves used in revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA), currently published mid-term results remain limited and some controversial issues remain unresolved. The purpose of this study was to investigate clinical and radiographic mid-term outcomes of the sleeves for the management of metaphyseal bone defects in revision TKAs. From 2015 to 2019, 44 patients (45 knees) who were operated with cementless porous-coated metaphyseal sleeve in revision TKA were included in this study. Bone defects were assessed according to Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute Classification. On the tibial side, there were 37 type II and six type III, and with regards to the femur, 15 were type II, and four were type III. Through reviewing electronic records, data were collected, including baseline demographics, operative details, information of prothesis, and complications. Clinical and radiographic evaluations were performed, including Knee Society Scores (KSS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), range of motion (ROM), the radiolucent line, level of joint line, and implant survival rate. Statistical analysis was performed by paired t-test for clinical and radiographic indexes. The mean follow-up time was 4.4 ± 1.4 years. During surgery, sleeve-related fractures were encountered in four (8.9%) knees, including incomplete tibial fracture of lateral cortex in one knee and of medial cortex in two knees, and longitudinal femoral metaphyseal fracture in one knee. Unions were achieved in all cases at the final follow-up. Significant improvements in KSS and WOMAC scores were found at the final follow-up, respectively, from 83.8 ± 29.1 to 152.9 ± 31.0 (t=-12.146, p < 0.001) and from 148.4 ± 42.3 to 88.1 ± 52.5 (t=6.025, p < 0.001). The mean ROM improved from 88.7 ± 31.9° to 113.7 ± 13.7° (t=-5.370, p < 0.001). A 75 mm length of cementless stem was used in all patients and only one patient was identified as tibial end-of-stem pain. No sleeve-related revision occurred, and one patient was diagnosed with early postoperative infection and was treated with irrigation and debridement, polyethylene liner exchange, and appropriate antibiotic treatment. The overall implant survival was 97.8% with the endpoint reoperation and 100% with the endpoint revision. Osseointegration at the bone-sleeve interface was found in all patients and no loosening happened. Satisfactory alignment between 3° varus and 3° valgus was achieved in all but not in three patients. The use of metaphyseal sleeves in the treatment of bone defects in rTKAs can provide stable fixation and significantly improve the clinical scores at the midterm follow-up. In addition, the rare occurrence of end-of-stem pain suggests routine use of cementless stems. Although there are chances of intraoperative fractures, it has no negative effect on outcome when managed properly.

What Is the Outcome of the First Revision Procedure of Primary THA for Osteoarthritis? A Study From the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry.

Joint arthroplasty registries traditionally report survivorship outcomes mainly on primary joint arthroplasty. The outcome of first revision procedures is less commonly reported, because large numbers of primary procedures are required to analyze a sufficient number of first revision procedures. Additionally, adequate linkage of primary procedures to revisions and mortality is required. When undertaking revision hip surgery, it is important for surgeons to understand the outcomes of these procedures to better inform patients. Using data from a large national joint registry, we asked: (1) What is the overall rate of revision of the first aseptic revision procedure for a primary THA? (2) Does the rate of revision of the first revision vary by the diagnosis for the first revision? (3) What is the mortality after the first revision, and does it vary by the reason for first revision? The Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry longitudinally maintains data on all primary and revision joint arthroplasties, with nearly 100% capture. The analyses for this study were performed on primary THA procedures in patients with a diagnosis of osteoarthritis up to December 31, 2020, who had undergone subsequent revision. We excluded all primary THAs involving metal-on-metal and ceramic-on-metal bearing surfaces and prostheses with exchangeable necks because these designs may have particular issues associated with revisions, such as extensive soft tissue destruction, that are not seen with conventional bearings, making a comparative analysis of the first revision involving these bearing surfaces more complicated. Metal-on-metal bearing surfaces have not been used in Australia since 2017. We identified 17,046 first revision procedures from the above study population and after exclusions, included 13,713 first revision procedures in the analyses. The mean age at the first revision was 71 ± 11 years, and 55% (7496 of 13,713) of the patients were women. The median (IQR) time from the primary procedure to the first revision was 3 years (0.3 to 7.3), ranging from 0.8 years for the diagnosis of dislocation and instability to 10 years for osteolysis. There was some variation depending on the reason for the first revision. For example, patients undergoing revision for fracture were slightly older (mean age 76 ± 11 years) and patients undergoing revision for dislocation were more likely to be women (61% [2213 of 3620]). The registry has endeavored to standardize the sequence of revisions and uses a numerical approach to describe revision procedures. The first revision is the revision of a primary procedure, the second revision is the revision of the first revision, and so on. We therefore described the outcome of the first revision as the cumulative percent second revision. The outcome measure was the cumulative percent revision, which was defined using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship to describe the time to the second revision. Hazard ratios from Cox proportional hazards models, adjusting for age and gender, were performed to compare the revision rates among groups. When possible, the cumulative percent second revision at the longest follow-up timepoint was determined with the available data, and when there were insufficient numbers, we used appropriate earlier time periods. The cumulative percent second revision at 18 years was 26% (95% confidence interval [CI] 24% to 28%). When comparing the outcome of the first revision by reason, prosthesis dislocation or instability had the highest rate of second revision compared with the other reasons for first revision. Dual-mobility prostheses had a lower rate of second revision for dislocation or instability than head sizes 32 mm or smaller and when compared to constrained prostheses after 3 months. There was no difference between dual-mobility prostheses and head sizes larger than 32 mm. There were no differences in the rate of second revision when first revisions for loosening, periprosthetic fracture, and osteolysis were compared. If cemented femoral fixation was performed at the time of the first revision, there was a higher cumulative percent second revision for loosening than cementless fixation from 6 months to 6 years, and after this time, there was no difference. The overall mortality after a first revision of primary conventional THA was 1% at 30 days, 2% at 90 days, 5% at 1 year, and 40% at 10 years. A first revision for periprosthetic fracture had the highest mortality at all timepoints compared with other reasons for the first revision. Larger head sizes and dual-mobility cups may help reduce further revisions for dislocation, and the use of cementless stems for a first revision for loosening seems advantageous. Surgeons may counsel patients about the higher risk of death after first revision procedures, particularly if the first revision is performed for periprosthetic fracture.Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study.

Use of a Plasma-Sprayed Titanium-Hydroxyapatite Femoral Stem in Hip Arthroplasty in Patients Older than 70 Years. Is Cementless Fixation a Reliable Option in the Elderly?

Background: Although cementless implants are increasing in popularity, the use of cementless femoral stems for total hip arthroplasty (THA) and hip hemiarthroplasty (HH) in elderly patients remains controversial. The aim of this study was to report the outcomes of a cementless stem used in a large multicentric cohort of elderly patients receiving elective THA and HH for displaced femoral neck fracture. Methods: A total of 293 patients (301 hips) aged 70 years or older (mean age, 78 years; range, 70–93) who received the same cementless plasma-sprayed porous titanium–hydroxyapatite stem were retrospectively evaluated after primary THA and HH to investigate stem survival, complications, and clinical and radiographic results. Results: Cumulative stem survival was 98.5% (95% CI, 96.4–99.4%; 91 hips at risks) with revision due to any reason as the end-point at 10-year follow-up (mean 8.6 years, range 4–12). No stem was revised due to aseptic loosening. The mean Forgotten Joint Score was 98.7. Radiographically, the implants showed complete osseointegration, with slight stress-shieling signs in less than 10% of the hips. Conclusion: The use of cementless stems was proven to be a reliable and versatile option even in elderly patients for elective THA and HH for femoral neck fracture.

The Effect of Surgical Approach and Femoral Prosthesis Type on Revision Rates Following Total Hip Arthroplasty: An Analysis of the Most Commonly Utilized Cementless Stems.

Compared with other total hip arthroplasty (THA) approaches, the anterior approach has an increased rate of revision for femoral-sided complications, and certain stems may increase this risk. The present study aimed to assess the outcome of THA by surgical approach, according to the femoral stem utilized in the procedure. Data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry were analyzed for patients undergoing primary THA for osteoarthritis via the anterior or posterior approach with use of 1 of 5 of the most common cementless femoral stems from January 2015 to December 2019. The primary outcome measures were the cumulative percent revision (CPR) for all causes and for femoral stem loosening and fracture. The CPR was compared between THAs performed via the anterior and posterior approaches for all stems and for each individual femoral stem, as well as between individual femoral stems for each approach. The study included 48,716 THAs performed with use of cementless stems, of which 22,840 utilized an anterior approach and 25,876 utilized a posterior approach. There was no difference in the all-cause CPR between the anterior and the posterior approach, but the anterior approach had a higher CPR for loosening (hazard ratio [HR], 2.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.48 to 2.69; p < 0.001) and fracture (HR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.34 to 2.35; p < 0.001). There was apparent variation in the CPR across the different cementless stems when an anterior approach was utilized. The Quadra-H (Medacta) had a higher all-cause CPR when compared with the Polarstem (Smith & Nephew; HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.16 to 1.91; p = 0.002) and Corail (DePuy Synthes; HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.70; p = 0.0478). Variation was less apparent with the posterior approach. THAs performed via the anterior approach had higher rates of revision for femoral stem loosening and fracture, with greater variation in outcomes between individual stems. Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

The Future is Non-cemented Total Knee Arthroplasty: Volume Trends at the Hospital for Special Surgery.

IntroductionThe optimal fixation method for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is still a debate. Cemented fixation has excellent long-term results and is the gold standard. However, longevity in the younger, heavier, and more active population is suboptimal. Cementless TKA offers the opportunity to gain biological fixation and overcome these shortcomings.MethodsThis is a retrospective review of all consecutive cementless TKA procedures performed at a single academic institution from 2016 until 2020. Demographics, aseptic revisions, and septic revisions were pulled from the electronic medical record. The number of yearly implanted cementless TKA prosthesis was determined to analyze utilization trends.ResultsEight-hundred and two patients were identified with a mean age of 61.57 ± 7.78 years, and a mean of BMI 32.12 ± 5.98 kg/m2. The mean time to revision was 12.31 ± 13.91 months. There were four septic failures and nine aseptic failures during the study period. Of these nine aseptic failures only five were due to mechanical loosening. There was a yearly linear increase in the use of cementless fixation.ConclusionCementless fixation is here to stay, and its use will continue to increase. Early and mid-term outcomes have been excellent thus far. Changing clinical practice takes time but we have already seen this transition take place in total hip arthroplasty. As technology and design continue to evolve, we believe it is a possibility.

An Update on Cementless Femoral Fixation in Total Hip Arthroplasty.

➤ Cementless stems can be categorized using the updated classification system.➤ Short stems were designed as an alternative to conventional stems with the advantage of bone preservation, and they have grown in popularity with promising results; however, long-term outcomes are lacking.➤ Hydroxyapatite coating appears to have no advantage with respect to stem loosening.➤ The literature has shown no difference in revision rates between modular and nonmodular stems; however, with the advantages of equalizing limb lengths and offset come the drawbacks of corrosion and junctional fatigue failure of modular implants.➤ There is increasing use of cementless stems, including in octogenarians, with promising outcomes compared with cemented stems; however, there is a higher risk of periprosthetic fractures with cementless fixation, particularly in elderly female patients.

Staged Revision of Infected-hip Arthroplasty Using an Antibiotics-loaded Intra-articular Cement Spacer: Impact on Cemented and Cementless Stem Retention.

PurposeCurrently, standard management of a peri-prosthetic infection is a two-stage revision precedure. However, removal of well-fixed cement is technically demanding and associated with numerous potential complications. For theses reasons, two-stage revision with preservation of the original femoral stem can be considered and several previous studies have achieved successful results. While most prior studies used cemented stems, the use of cementless stems during arthroplasty has been gradually increasing; this study aims to assess the comparative effectiveness of a two-stage revision of infected hip arthroplasties at preserving cemented and cementless stems.Materials and MethodsBetween December 2001 and February 2017, Inje University Sanggye Paik Hospital treated 45 cases of deep infections following hip arthroplasty with a two stage revisional arthroplasty using antibiotics-loaded cement spacers. This approach was applied in an effort to preserve the previously implanted femoral stem. Of these 45 cases, 20 were followed-up for at least two years and included in this analysis. Perioperative clinical symptoms, radiological findings, function and complications during insertion of an antibiotics-loaded cement spacer were analyzed in this study.ResultsPeri-prothetic infections were controlled in 19 of the 20 included cases. Clinical outcomes, as assessed using the Harris hip score, Western Ontario and McMaster University score, also improved. Importantly, similarly improved outcomes were achieved for both cemented and cementless femoral stems.ConclusionIn cases of deep infection following hip arthroplasty, two-stage revision arthroplasty to preserve the previously implanted femoral stem (cemented or cementless) effectively controls infections and preserves joint function.

Discrepancy and contradiction regarding fixation of hip stems with or without cement: survey among 765 hip arthroplasty specialists.

The growing use of cementless stems is associated with an increase in implant-related complications. This global survey study investigates which parameters orthopaedic surgeons currently consider for either cemented or cementless stem fixation in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). A survey regarding current practice patterns was distributed among hip arthroplasty specialists. Key questions concerned: (i) frequency of using cemented/cementless stems; (ii) frequency of using parameters which influence a choice between both; (iii) usage of specific cut-off values for parameters. 507 (out of 765) respondents, having at least 5 years' experience and performing at least 50 cases a year, were selected for analysis. Respondents using both fixation techniques ( n = 413; 81%) use a cementless stem in 69% and a cemented stem in 31%. The choice is most frequently based on: (i) patient age; (ii) cortical thickness; (iii) femoral canal shape; (iv) bone mineral density; and (v) stem fit on preoperative templating. 57% using both fixation techniques do not use a specific cut-off value for age. 92% of the respondents that do use a cut-off value for age use exclusively cemented stems in patients being ⩾72.7 years (median 75; range 50-90 years). Considerable discrepancy and even contradictory responses were present regarding the other parameters and the use of specific cut-off values. Current practice patterns regarding stem fixation in primary THA vary substantially among orthopaedic surgeons. Evidence-based guidelines are needed to define which parameters and threshold values support the best individual choice for hip stem fixation.

Cementless, modular, distally fixed stem in hip revision arthroplasty: a single-center study of 132 consecutive hips

PurposeThe use of cementless, modular, distally fixed stem in hip revision arthroplasty has increased during the last decades. We aimed to analyze the early and late postoperative complications, re-operation rate, and survival rate of the MP stem operated at our county hospital with relatively limited caseload.MethodsIn this retrospective study, we included 132 hips operated with MP stem between January 2007–2014. An independent observer reviewed patients’ medical records in July 2015 (18–102 months postoperatively, median 52.5) to collect the following data: age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class, body mass index, indication of revision, type of operation, early and late complications, re-operation rate, and mortality during study period.ResultsThe commonest indication for MP stem operation was aseptic loosening (72%). We found early and late postoperative complications in 29% of cases. The most common complication was prosthetic dislocation (8%), followed by intra-operative peri-prosthetic fracture (5%). The commonest indication for MP re-operation was soft tissue revision for infection (7%) followed by closed reduction for prosthetic dislocation (6%). We found no correlation between the age, sex, ASA class, and type of operation and the re-operation risk. Only one prosthesis was extracted giving a survival rate for 99% for the study period.ConclusionThis study showed good results of the MP prosthesis with reasonable complication and re-operation rates and negligible extraction rate, indicating the good performance of this implant even when used in the setting of a county hospital with limited caseload.

Femoral revision with primary cementless stems: a systematic review of the literature.

The use of primary cementless stems in femoral revision has gained popularity, but no clear consensus about the correct indication is still present. The aim of our systematic review is to: (1) summarize the available literature focused on the use of cementless primary stem in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA); (2) evaluate whether the use of cementless primary stems could represent a feasible option in hip revision; (3) define the proper indication of this surgical approach. A systematic literature review was performed about the use of cementless primary stems in revision THA. The PRISMA 2009 checklist was considered to edit our review. A total of nine articles were included. The current evidence is primarily Level IV. A total of 439 patients (454 hips) underwent THA revision with primary cementless stem. Partial cementless porous coated stems were used in 246 hips (54.2%). The majority of patients were affected by type I or II Paprosky femoral defects. The mean stem-related survival rate is 95.6%±3.8 with a mean follow-up of 4.7years±1.3. Poor standardization of methodological analysis was observed. Current literature shows lacking evidence about primary cementless stems in revision THA. Despite these limitations, we can affirm that primary cementless stems in femoral revision surgery represent a viable option in selected patients. The proper indication is a patient with femoral Paprosky defect types I or II, with low number of previous surgeries and a previous cementless stem.

Femoral head–neck modularity: Curtain calls and caveats

There are practical and fiscal benefits of head–neck modularity. Taper corrosion occurs with all head sizes and rarely necessitates revision. The role of design and manufacturing variables continues to be investigated and debated. The utilization of ceramic heads has increased but the cost–utility ratio needs scrutiny. Changes in surgical practice, including smaller incisions and the increased use of cementless, tapered titanium stems are challenges to consistent and adequate taper assembly. Surgical taper assembly is variable and important regardless of the head material. Standardization of surgical taper assembly is desirable for all head materials: taper assembly has been implicated in ceramic head fracture as well as in fretting and corrosion.

Cementless Tapered Femoral Stems for Total Hip Arthroplasty in Octogenarians

BackgroundThe use of cementless femoral components has become the standard in younger patients due to increased implant survivorship and decreased loosening. However, it remains controversial whether these femoral stems can provide comparable results in elderly patients. Therefore, our purpose was to compare the (1) incidence of revisions; (2) clinical outcomes; (3) incidence of postoperative blood transfusions; and (4) differences in complications between the 2 cohorts. MethodsSeventy-four consecutive patients (78 hips) aged 80 years or older, who underwent primary total hip arthroplasty using a cementless, tapered, femoral stem were retrospectively compared with a matched cohort of 76 patients (78 hips) who were less than 80 years. Mean age was 83 years (range, 80-91 years) vs 59 years (range, 17-79 years) for the matched group. Minimum follow-up was 2 years. Revision rates, clinical outcomes using the Harris Hip Score, incidences of complications, and postoperative transfusion rates were evaluated. ResultsIn the octogenarian cohort, the aseptic survivorship was 99%, compared with 95% in the matched group. There were 2 aseptic loosenings (2.6%): 1 femoral implant loosening (1.3%) and 1 acetabular loosening, but only 1 revision was performed, as one of the patients declined revision surgery. In the matched cohort, there were 6 revisions (7.7%). There were no significant differences in revision rates between the 2 cohorts, and no significant differences in final Harris Hip Score scores. The incidence of blood transfusion in the study group was 42% vs 19% in control group (P < .01). ConclusionThe use of cementless, tapered, femoral stems yielded excellent results in the octogenarian group, although adequate patient preoperative optimization is necessary given the significantly higher transfusion incidence.

High Survivorship With Cementless Stems and Cortical Strut Allografts for Large Femoral Bone Defects in Revision THA.

Numerous studies have investigated the clinical and radiographic results of revision THAs with use of cementless stems and cortical strut allografts. However, to our knowledge, no long-term followup studies have evaluated patients undergoing revision THA with use of cortical strut allografts where the allografts provided the primary stability for extensively coated femoral stems in the presence of extensive femoral diaphyseal bone defects. We performed this study to determine (1) validated outcomes scores; (2) radiographic signs of fixation and allograft healing; (3) frequency of complications; and (4) survivorship of the components after use of cortical strut onlay allografts in Types IIIB and IV femoral diaphyseal bone defects. Between 1994 and 2003, we performed 140 revision THAs in 130 patients with Paprosky Types IIIB and IV femoral diaphyseal defects. The patients were treated using extensively coated femoral stems and cortical strut allografts because primary axial or rotational stability could not be achieved without grafting. Ten of the patients (10 hips; 7.7%) were lost to followup or died before 10 years; the remaining 120 patients (130 hips) represent the study group in this retrospective study. There were 66 men and 54 women. Their mean age at the time of index surgery was 59 ± 18 years (range, 36-67 years). The primary diagnosis was predominantly osteonecrosis of the femoral head (53%). The most common reason for revision was aseptic loosening (97%), followed by periprosthetic fracture (3%). The mean time from primary to revision THA was 12 years (range, 8-27 years). The mean duration of followup was 16.1 years (range, 12-20 years). The mean Harris hip score was 39 ± 10 points before revision and improved to 86 ± 14 points at 16 years followup (p = 0.02). The mean preoperative WOMAC score was 62 ± 29 (41-91) points and improved to 22 ± 19 (11-51) points at 16 years followup (p = 0.003). Of the 130 stems, 113 (87%) had bone ingrowth, five (4%) had stable fibrous ingrowth, and 12 (9%) were unstable. All allografts were incorporated. Four hips (3%) had a displaced femoral shaft fracture at the stem tip; four (3%) had a postoperative dislocation; and six (5%) had early postoperative infection. Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis, with revision or radiographic failure as the endpoint, revealed that the 16-year rate of survival of the components was 91% (95% CI, 0.88%-0.96%). Supportive cortical strut onlay allografts provided high survivorship beyond 12 years of followup in revision THAs. Future studies might compare this approach with allograft-prosthesis composites, proximal femoral replacement, or modular fluted, tapered stems. Level IV, therapeutic study.

Intraoperative periprosthetic hip fractures

Periprosthetic femoral fractures are among the most difficult and expensive complications of total hip arthroplasty. A rise in the elderly population and the increased indications of primary and revision hip arthroplasty has led to an escalating incidence. Intraoperative periprosthetic fractures are becoming more common given the increased numbers of revision total hip arthroplasty and the use of cementless fixation. Risk factors for intraoperative periprosthetic fractures include the use of minimally invasive techniques; the use of press-fit cementless stems and cups; revision surgery, specially when a long cementless stem or a short stem with impaction allografting is used; female gender; metabolic bone disease; bone diseases leading to altered morphology such as Paget disease and technical errors during the operation.

Use of Cementless, Tapered Femoral Stems in Patients Who Have a Mean Age of 20 Years

Young patients who undergo total hip arthroplasty are a unique group who has been challenging to successfully treat; however, newer prosthetic materials and designs have the potential to increase implant longevity. Fifty-three hips (40 patients who had a mean age of 20 years) underwent a total hip arthroplasty using a cementless, proximally hydroxyapatite-coated, tapered, femoral stem and a cementless acetabular cup. There was a 96% overall survivorship at approximately 5 years of mean follow-up (range, 2-7 years) with no femoral side failures. Younger patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty with newer component designs and materials may have similar excellent outcomes to older patients.

First experiences with knee prostheses with a tibial component made of trabecular tantalum

Background: Although excellent log-term results have been reported with cemented tibial fi xation, means to improve the longevity of total knee replacements continue to be of interest to clinicians. Based on good results obtained for hip prostheses, one of the possible choices is the use of cementless fi xation with improved eff ectiveness of osseointegration. Tibial components made of trabecular metal introduced recently have off ered greatly increased bone ingrowth and good functional characteristics due to their porous structure and physical-chemical properties similar to those of bone. Monoblock design prevents the back-side wear. Methods: We have implanted 434 total knee replacements with tibial components made of trabecular tantal (Trabecular Metal Monobloc, Nexgen Legacy). Patient demographic data were analysed and revision cases were described. Results: Aft er a mean follow-up of 28 months fi ve components were revised: three for infection, one for instability and one for rigidity. Conclusions: Cementless knee prosthesis made of trabecular tantalum has the advantage of shorter operation time and avoidance of possible adverse eff ects of cement as well as its deterioration and delamination. With increasing follow-up period we expect longterm advantages in terms of improved direct osseointegration. Disadvantages are the relatively high price of the prosthesis and the possibility of a potentially higher incidence of infection due to the lack of antibiotics from the cement.

Intraoperative Periprosthetic Fractures During Total Hip Arthroplasty

Intraoperative periprosthetic fractures are becoming more common given the increased prevalence of revision total hip arthroplasty and increased use of cementless fixation. Risk factors for intraoperative periprosthetic fractures include the use of minimally invasive techniques; the use of press-fit cementless stems; revision operations, especially when a long cementless stem is used or when a short stem with impaction allografting is used; female sex; metabolic bone disease; bone diseases leading to altered morphology such as Paget disease; and technical errors at the time of the operation. Appropriate treatment of intraoperative periprosthetic fractures does not compromise the long-term results of total hip arthroplasty unless the bone damage precludes stable fixation of the implant.

The Role of Stems and Augments for Bone Loss in Revision Knee Arthroplasty

The treatment of bone deficiencies during revision knee arthroplasty remains a challenging problem. The primary treatment options for these bone deficiencies include the use of structural allografts, impaction bone grafting, and the use of prosthetic augments. There have been no comparative series demonstrating the superiority of any of these techniques. Supplemental stem fixation should be used when using one of these treatment approaches. Although the use of cementless stems is currently more popular, the available literature suggests that cemented stem fixation provides a more reliable and durable construct for revision knee arthroplasty associated with severe bone deficiency.

Cementless Two-staged Total Hip Arthroplasty for Deep Periprosthetic Infection

bTwo-staged exchange with delayed reimplantation of a new prosthesis is considered by many to be the preferred method of treatment for deep periprosthetic infection after total hip arthroplasty. Until recently, most authors of previously published reports of this two-staged exchange procedure have used cemented implants fixed with antibiotic-containing bone cement. In view of the superior results of revision total hip arthroplasties with cementless implants, we reviewed the results of 33 two-staged revision total hip arthroplasties done for deep infection using cementless femoral components. There were no recurrent infections in the 28 patients in this study who had a 2-year minimum followup. Two patients developed a new infection with a different organism after reimplantation of their hip. Three patients with considerable acetabular bone deficiency had acetabular component revision for aseptic loosening; however, there were no cases of femoral component loosening. The overall infection rate of 7% using this approach was comparable to previous reports of two-staged revision total hip arthroplasties done with cemented components fixed with antibiotic-containing bone cement. In addition, cementless femoral component fixation seemed to be more reliable and durable in comparison to previous reports of revision total hip arthroplasty with cemented stems. The results of this study support the continued use of cementless implant fixation for two-staged reconstruction of the infected total hip arthroplasty. Therapeutic study, Level IV-1 (case series). See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.