Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty with Use of a Cemented Femoral Component

Haydon, C.; Mehin, Ramin; Burnett, Stephen; Rorabeck, Cecil H.; Bourne, Robert B.; McCalden, Richard W.; MacDonald, Steven J.

doi:10.2106/00004623-200406000-00009

Cited by 73 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…24 Therefore, clinical results from revision total hip replacements are usually inferior compared to primary total hip replacements. However, if the original bone quality is preserved or restored, results for revision total hip replacements are equally as good as the primary THRs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of mesenchymal stem cells to enhance bone formation around revision hip replacements

Korda

Blunn

Goodship

et al. 2008

Journal Orthopaedic Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tissue engineering approaches to regenerate bone stock in revision total hip replacements could enhance the longevity of the implant and benefit the quality of the patient's life. This study investigated the impaction of allograft with mesenchymal stem cells in an ovine hip hemiarthroplasty model. In total, 10 sheep were divided into two groups with 5 sheep in each group. The groups were: 1) mesenchymal stem cells mixed with allograft; 2) allograft only as a control. Ground reaction force was assessed for limb function and showed that there was no significant difference in the recovery for animals in different groups. The amount of bone regenerated around the hip replacement was assessed using un-decalcified histology. The results showed that the stem cell group generated significantly more new bone at the implantallograft interface and within the graft than the control group. The results from this study indicate that the use of stem cells on an allograft scaffold increases bone formation indicating that the use of stem cells for revision hip arthroplasty may be beneficial for patients undergoing revision surgery where the bone stock is compromised. ß

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of mesenchymal stem cells to enhance bone formation around revision hip replacements

Korda

Blunn

Goodship

et al. 2008

Journal Orthopaedic Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They report a rate of repeat revision for aseptic loosening of the femoral component of 16% after an average follow up of 15.1 years. Haydon et al [9] found that the 10-year survival rate associated with third generation cementing techniques was signiWcantly better than that associated with second generation techniques when rerevision because of aseptic loosening was used as the end point (94% compared with 85%; P < 0.05). In our study, we used Wrst generation cementing technique for all patients: Wnger packing of the cement without use of the medullary plug or cement gun, no centrifugation, no pressurization, or reduction of porosity.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Revision total hip arthroplasty with cemented femoral component

Nouri

Kallel

Slimane

et al. 2008

Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We reviewed retrospectively the results of 28 hips (25 patients) after revision of the femoral component with use of a cemented stem, because of aseptic loosening. The mean duration of follow-up was 4.43 years (range 2-12 years). Over the course of the study period, repeat revision was done in 4 hips after an average of 4.45 years. Three hips had a repeat revision of the femoral component because of aseptic loosening and one for a deep infection. The rate of loosening of the femoral component was 32.4% (9 hips) at an average of 5.22 years. The 5-year survival rate was 76.9% with mechanical failure as end point; and 90% with rerevision of femoral component because of aseptic loosening as end point. The cement mantle was the principal factor, which was signiWcantly associated with a better survival rate of femur Wxation (P < 0.05). No correlation was noted between quality of bone loss at the time of revision, bone graft or the use of long stems, and the survival rate of femoral component. By improving the cementing technique and in selected patients, the use of cemented femoral stem could be a good alternative for aseptic loosening THA.

show abstract

“…These defects can be treated with a cylindrical extensively porous coated stem, although tapered proximally porous coated stems may remain an option if the proximal metaphyseal bone is sufficient to support osteointegration [1,8,23,25,36,37]. Although less popular in the United States, other authors also have reported good results with cemented stem revision arthroplasty for cases of preserved proximal femoral geometry [14,28].…”

Section: Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%