Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

, Volume 468, Issue 12, pp 3314–3321 | Cite as

Reduced Femoral Component Subsidence with Improved Impaction Grafting at Revision Hip Arthroplasty

  • D. W. Howie
  • S. A. Callary
  • M. A. McGee
  • N. C. Russell
  • L. B. Solomon
Symposium: Papers Presented at the 2009 Closed Meeting of the International Hip Society

Abstract

Background

Despite stem subsidence being a major complication of femoral impaction bone grafting in cemented revision hip arthroplasty, few studies have distinguished subsidence at the prosthesis-cement interface from that at the cement-bone interface. It is unknown how technique developments intended to improve the procedure influence stability of the stem.

Questions/purposes

We used a sensitive technique to measure subsidence of a cemented polished collarless double-taper stem at each interface after femoral impaction grafting and compared subsidence, radiographic loosening, complications, and reoperations over three series of hips defined by technique developments.

Patients and Methods

Three series were defined: Series 1 (n = 23, irradiated allograft), Series 2 (n = 12, double-washed, size-profiled graft, nonirradiated bone, long stems as required), and Series 3 (n = 21, modular tamps). Stem subsidence was analyzed with Ein Bild Röntgen Analyse software. Radiographic loosening, complications, and reoperations were also determined.

Results

The median subsidence at 12 months for Series 1, 2, and 3 were 2.1, 0.5, and 0.7 mm at the prosthesis-cement interface and 1.3, 0.1, and 0.1 mm at the cement-bone interface. There were two postoperative Vancouver B periprosthetic fractures in Series 1, four hips were revised for loosening in Series 1, and there were no fractures or loosening in Series 2 and 3 at minimum 2 years’ followup. There were no surviving hips radiographically classified as possibly or probably loose.

Conclusions

Evolution in techniques of femoral impaction grafting in this study were associated with reduced subsidence of the stem at both the prosthesis-cement interface and cement-bone interface when compared to the original series. Concurrent with reduced stem subsidence was the absence of periprosthetic fracture, radiographic loosening, and complications requiring rerevision.

Level of Evidence

Level II, prognostic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

References

  1. 1.
    Alfaro-Adrian J, Gill HS, Murray DW. Cement migration after THR: a comparison of Charnley Elite and Exeter femoral stems using RSA. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1999;81:130–134.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barker R, Takahashi T, Toms A, Gregson P, Kuiper JH. Reconstruction of femoral defects in revision hip surgery: risk of fracture and stem migration after impaction bone grafting. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006;88:832–836.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Biedermann R, Krismer M, Stockl B, Mayrhofer P, Ornstein E, Franzen H. Accuracy of EBRA-FCA in the measurement of migration of femoral components of total hip replacement: Einzel-Bild-Röntgen-Analyse-femoral component analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1999;81:266–272.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Biedermann R, Stockl B, Krismer M, Mayrhofer P, Ornstein E, Franzén H. Evaluation of accuracy and precision of bone markers for the measurement of migration of hip prostheses: a comparison of conventional measurements. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2001;83:767–771.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brewster NT, Gillespie WJ, Howie CR, Madabhushi SP, Usmani AS, Fairbairn DR. Mechanical considerations in impaction bone grafting. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1999;81:118–124.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cabanela ME, Trousdale RT, Berry DJ. Impacted cancellous graft plus cement in hip revision. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;417:175–182.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dunlop DG, Brewster NT, Madabjushi SP, Usmani AS, Pankaj P, Howie CR. Techniques to improve the shear strength of impacted bone graft. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85:639–646.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Edwards SA, Pandit HG, Grover ML, Clarke HJ. Impaction bone grafting in revision hip surgery. J Arthroplasty. 2003;18:852–859.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eldridge JD, Smith EJ, Hubble MJ, Whitehouse SL, Learmonth ID. Massive early subsidence following femoral impaction grafting. J Arthroplasty. 1997;12:S35–S40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Elting JJ, Mikhail WE, Zicat BA, Hubbell JC, Lane LE, House B. Preliminary report of impaction grafting for exchange femoral arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1995;319:159–167.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Engelbrecht E, Heinert K. Klassifikation und Behandlungsricgtlinien von Knochensubstanzverlusten bei Revisionsoperationen am Hüftgelenk-mittelfristige Ergebnisse. Primär und Revisionsalloarthroplastik Hüft und Kniegelank. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag; 1987:189–201.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Farfalli GL, Buttaro MA, Piccaluga F. Femoral fractures in revision hip surgeries with impacted bone allograft. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;462:130–136.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fowler JL, Gie GA, Lee AJ, Ling RS. Experience with the Exeter total hip replacement since 1970. Orthop Clin North Am. 1988;19:477–489. Erratum in: Orthop Clin North Am. 1989;20:preceding 519.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gie GA, Linder L, Ling RS, Simon JP, Slooff TJ, Timperley AJ. Impacted cancellous allografts and cement for revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1993;75:14–21PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gokhale S, Soliman A, Dantas JP, Richardson JB, Cook F, Kuiper JH, Jones P. Variables affecting initial stability of impaction grafting for hip revision. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;432:174–180.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Halliday BR, English HW, Timperley AJ, Gie GA, Ling RS. Femoral impaction grafting with cement in revision total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2003;85:809–817.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Harris WH, McCarthy JC, O’Neil DA. Femoral component loosening using contemporary techniques of femoral cement fixation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1982;64:1063–1067.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hassaballa M, Mehendale S, Poniatowski S, Kalantzis G, Smith E, Learmonth ID. Subsidence of the stem after impaction bone grafting for revision hip replacement using irradiated bone. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009;91:37–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Höstner J, Hultmark P, Kärrholm J, Malchau H, Tveit M. Impaction technique and graft treatment in revisions of the femoral component: laboratory studies and clinical validation. J Arthroplasty. 2001;16:76–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Howie DW, Wimhurst JA, McGee MA, Carbone TA, Badaruddin BS. Revision total hip replacement using cemented collarless double-taper femoral components. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89:879–886.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Karrholm J, Hultmark P, Carlsson L, Malchau H. Subsidence of a non-polished stem in revisions of the hip using impaction allograft: evaluation with radiostereometry and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1999;81:135–142.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mahoney CR, Fehringer EV, Kopjar B, Garvin KL. Femoral revision with impaction grafting and a collarless, polished, tapered stem. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;432:181–187.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Malchau H, Kärrholm J, Wang YX, Herberts P. Accuracy of migration analysis in hip arthroplasty: digitized and conventional radiography, compared to radiostereometry in 51 patients. Acta Orthop Scand. 1995;66:418–424.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Masterson EL, Masri BA, Duncan CP. The cement mantle in the Exeter impaction allografting technique: a cause for concern. J Arthroplasty. 1997;12:759–764.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Meding JB, Ritter MA, Keating EM, Faris PM. Impaction bone-grafting before insertion of a femoral stem with cement in revision total hip arthroplasty: a minimum two-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997;79:1834–1841.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nelson IW, Bulstrode CJ, Mowat AG. Femoral allografts in revision of the hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1990;72:151–152.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nivbrant B, Kärrholm J, Röhrl S, Hassander H, Wesslén B. Bone cement with reduced proportion of monomer in total hip arthroplasty: preclinical evaluation and randomized study of 47 cases with 5 years’ follow-up. Acta Orthop Scand. 2001;72:572–584.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Oakley J, Kuiper JH. Factors affecting the cohesion of impaction bone graft. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006;88:828–831.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ornstein E, Franzen H, Johnsson R, Karlsson MK, Linder L, Sundberg M. Hip revision using the Exeter stem, impacted morselized allograft bone and cement: a consecutive 5-year radiostereometric and radiographic study in 15 hips. Acta Orthop Scand. 2004;75:533–543.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ornstein E, Linder L, Ranstam J, Lewold S, Eisler T, Torper M. Femoral impaction bone grafting with the Exeter stem—the Swedish Experience: survivorship analysis of 1305 revisions performed between 1989 and 2002. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009;91:441–446.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Panjabi MM, Trumble T, Hult E, Southwick WO. Effect of femoral stem length on stress raisers associated with revision hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Res. 1985;3:447–455.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pekkarinen J, Alho A, Lepisto J, Ylikoski M, Ylinen P, Paavilainen T. Impaction bone grafting in revision hip surgery: a high incidence of complications. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2000;82:103–107.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Robinson DE, Lee MB, Smith EJ, Learmonth ID. Femoral impaction grafting in revision hip arthroplasty with irradiated bone. J Arthroplasty. 2002;17:834–840.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Schreurs BW, Arts JJ, Verdonschot N, Buma P, Slooff TJ, Gardeniers JW. Femoral component revision with use of compaction bone-grafting and a cemented polished stem. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:2499–2507.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sierra RJ, Charity J, Tsiridis E, Timperley JA, Gie GA. The use of long cemented stems for femoral impaction grafting in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90:1330–1336.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Simon JP, Fowler JL, Gie GA, Ling RS, Timperley AJ. Impaction cancellous grafting of the femur in cemented total hip revision arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1991;73(Suppl 1):73.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Stefánsdőttir A, Franzén H, Johnsson R, Ornstein E, Sundberg M. Movement pattern of the Exeter stem: a radiostereometric analysis of 22 primary hip arthroplasties followed for 5 years. Acta Orthop Scand. 2004;75:408–414.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Thanner J, Freij-Larsson C, Kärrholm J, Malchau H, Wesslén B. Evaluation of Boneloc. Chemical and mechanical properties, and a randomized clinical study of 30 total hip arthroplasties. Acta Orthop Scand. 1995;66:207–214.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Toms AD, Barker RL, Jones RS, Kuiper JH. Impaction bone-grafting in revision joint replacement surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86:2050–2060.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ullmark G. Bigger size and defatting of bone chips will increase cup stability. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2000;120:445–447.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    van Biezen FC, ten Have BL, Verhaar JA. Impaction bone-grafting of severely defective femora in revision total hip surgery: 21 hips followed for 41-85 months. Acta Orthop Scand. 2000;71:135–142.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    van Doorn WJ, ten Have BL, van Biezen FC, Hop WC, Ginai AZ, Verhaar JA. Migration of the femoral stem after impaction bone grafting: first results of an ongoing, randomised study of the Exeter and Elite Plus femoral stems using radiostereometric analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2002;84:825–831.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wraighte PJ, Howard PW. Femoral impaction bone allografting with an Exeter cemented collarless, polished, tapered stem in revision hip replacement: a mean follow-up of 10.5 years. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90:1000–1004.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Yates PJ, Burston BJ, Whitley E, Bannister GC. Collarless polished tapered stem. Clinical and radiological results at a minimum of ten years’ follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90:16–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Yim SJ, Kim MY, Suh YS. Impaction allograft with cement for the revision of the femoral component: a minimum 39-month follow-up study with the use of the Exeter stem in Asian hips. Int Orthop. 2007;31:297–302.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. W. Howie
    • 1
    • 2
  • S. A. Callary
    • 1
    • 2
  • M. A. McGee
    • 1
    • 2
  • N. C. Russell
    • 1
  • L. B. Solomon
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedics and TraumaRoyal Adelaide HospitalAdelaideAustralia
  2. 2.Discipline of Orthopaedics and TraumaUniversity of AdelaideAdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations