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.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00590-020-02736-w | DOI Listing |
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res
December 2024
Trauma and Orthopaedics, Royal Free NHS Foundation Trust, Pond Street, London, NW3 2QG, United Kingdom.
Background: Periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFF) are a challenging complication of hip arthroplasty surgery, posing a high risk of morbidity, mortality and reoperation. The Vancouver Classification describes a B2 PFF around a loose stem with sufficient bone stock. In recent years, the number of B2 PFFs and cementation of femoral stems have increased substantially.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFArthroplast Today
February 2023
Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, University Hospital Limerick, Limerick, Ireland.
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.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFJ Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad
November 2022
Royal Lancaster Infirmary, UK.
Fracture of the Exeter™ V40™ stem is uncommonly reported in the literature. The cement-in-cement femoral revision is a described technique for revising well-cemented femoral components during revision hip arthroplasty. We present our experience using this technique in managing a fractured Exeter™ V40™ stem.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFJ Adv Prosthodont
June 2022
Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Jeonbuk National University, Research Institute of Clinical Medicine of Jeonbuk National University - Biomedical Research Institute of Jeonbuk National University Hospital, Jeonju, Republic of Korea.
Purpose: The present study aims to analyze the effect of abutment neck taper and types of cement on the amount of undetected remnant cement of cement-retained implant prostheses.
Materials And Methods: Three neck taper angles (53°, 65°, 77°) and three types of cement (RMGI: resin-modified glass ionomer, ZPC: zinc phosphate cement, ZOE: zinc oxide eugenol cement) were used. For each group, the surface percentage was measured using digital image and graphic editing software.
J Orthop
March 2022
Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, 1345 Govan Road, Glasgow, G51 4TF, UK.
Background: To compare outcomes of revision to a long uncemented stem with cement-in-cement revision for Vancouver B2 periprosthetic fracture (PPF).
Methods: Patients undergoing surgery for a Vancouver B2 PPF in a cemented stem from 2008 to 2018 were identified using our prospectively collated database.
Results: We identified 43 uncemented and 29 cement-in-cement revisions.
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!