Advertisement

Excellent results of a femoral press-fit stem cemented with a thin mantle: 116 hips followed for 11–18 years

  • Erling Gjengedal
  • Gisle Uppheim
  • Håvard Bjerkholt
  • Øystein Høvik
  • Olav ReikeråsEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

We report the outcome of a femoral stem designed for press-fit insertion and cemented with a thin mantle. During the years 1986–1992 we performed 346 primary total hip replacements in 305 patients. Their mean age at the time of the surgery was 75 (range, 52–91 years). During the follow-up, 206 patients had died (227 hips) and 3 were lost. This left us with 96 patients (116 hips), who were followed for a mean of 13 years (range, 11–18 years). Stem survivorship according to Kaplan–Meier analysis indicated a total survival of 0.982 (confidence intervals, 0.952–1). The mechanical survival rate was 0.985 (confidence intervals, 0.955–1) at 17 years with one patient at risk. Fifty-nine (70%) of the surviving patients were very satisfied with the operated hip, 22 (26%) were satisfied, 2 (2.5%) were content, and 1 (1.5%) was dissatisfied. Then, the press-fit stem allowing minimal cement has a 17-year survival rate of 0.98.

Keywords

Cement Hip Prosthesis Stem Thickness 

Excellents résultats d’une tige fémorale press-fit cimentée

Résumé

Les auteurs rapportent leur expérience de 116 poses de tiges fémorales press-fit cimentées avec une fine couche de ciment. Entre 1986 et 1992, 346 arthroplasties totales de hanche de première intention avaient été réalisées. L’âge moyen lors de l’intervention était de 75 ans (extrêmes, 52–91). Lors du contrôle, 206 patients étaient décédés (227 hanches) et 3 étaient perdus de vue. Il reste ainsi 96 patients (116 hanches) qui ont été suivis avec un recul moyen de 13 ans (extrêmes, 11–18 ans). Le taux de survie total selon Kaplan–Meier de la tige est de 0.982 (intervalles de confiance, 0.952–1). Le taux de survie mécanique était de 0.985 (intervalles de confiance, 0.955–1) à 17 ans avec un patient à risque. Cinquante neuf (70%) patients survivants étaient très satisfaits de leur hanche opérée, vingt deux (26%) étaient simplement satisfaits, deux (2.5%) étaient assez-satisfaits et un patient (1.5%) était mécontent. Ainsi la tige fémorale press-fit avec fine couche de ciment a un taux de survie à 17 ans de 0.98.

Mots clés

Ciment Hanche Prothèses Tige fémorale Épaisseur 

References

  1. 1.
    Alho A, Lepistö J, Ylinen P, Paavilainen T (2000) Cemented Lubinus and Furlog total hip endoprosthesis: a 12-year follow-up study of 175 hips comparing the cementing technique. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 120:276–280PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    MacDonald W, Swarts E, Beaver R (1993) Penetration and shear strength of cement–bone interface in vivo. Clin Orthop Relat Res 286:283–288PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mann KA, Ayers DC, Werner FW, Nicoletta RJ, Fortini MD (1997) Tensile strength of the cement–bone interface depends on the amount of bone interdigitated with PMMA cement. J Biomech 30:339–346PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ebramzadeh E, Sarmiento A, McKellop HA, Linas A, Gogan W (1994) The cement mantle in total hip arthroplasty: analysis of long-term radiographic results. J Bone Joint Surg 76-A:77–87Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Estok DM, Orr TE, Harris WH (1997) Factors affecting cement strains near the tip of a cemented femoral component. J Arthroplasty 12:40–48PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fisher DA, Tsang AC, Paydar H, Milionis S, Turner CH (1997) Cement mantle thickness affects cement strains in total hip replacement. J Biomech 30:1173–1177PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Joshi RP, Eftekhar NS, McMahon DJ, Nercessian OA (1998) Osteolysis after Charnley primary low-friction arthroplasty: a comparison of two matched paired groups. J Bone Joint Surg 80-B:585–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kawate K, Maloney W, Bragdon CR, et al (1998) Importance of a thin cement mantle: autopsy studies of eight hips. Clin Orthop Relat Res 355:70–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kawate K, Phmura T, Hyoshi N, et al (1999) Thin cement mantle and osteolysis with a pre-coated stem. Clin Orthop Relat Res 365:124–129PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lee IY, Skinner HB, Keyak JH (1994) Effects of variation of prosthesis size on cement stress at the tip of a femoral implant. J Biomed Mater Res 28:1055–1060PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ramaniraka NA, Rakotomanana LR, Leyvraz P-F (2000) The fixation of the cemented femoral component: effects of stem stiffness, cement thickness and roughness of the cement/bone surface. J Bone Joint Surg 80-B:297–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schmolz W, Gordon DR, Shields AJ, Kirkwood D, Grigoris P (2000) The effect of stem geometry on stresses within the distal cement mantle in total hip replacement. Technol Health Care 8:67–73PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Star MJ, Colwell CW, Kelmanm GJ, Bullock RT, Wacker RH (1994) Sub-optimal distal cement mantle thickness as a contributory factor in total hip arthroplasty femoral component failure: a retrospective analysis favouring distal cement centralisation. J Arthroplasty 9:2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tapadiya D, Walker RH, Schurman DJ (1984) Prediction of outcome of total hip arthroplasty based on initial post-operative radiographic analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 186:5–15PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Valdivia GG, Dunbar MJ, Parker DA, et al (2001) Three-dimensional analysis of the cement made in total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 393:38–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kerboull L, Hamadouche M, Kerboull M (2000) Long term results of Charnley–Kerboull total hip replacement in patients younger than 50. In: Canton J, Ferreira A, Picault C (eds) Arthroplastie totale de hanche. Transit Communications, Lyon, pp. 37–38Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nizard RS, Sedel L, Christel R (1992) Ten year survivorship of cemented ceramic–ceramic total hip prostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res 282:53–63PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Witvoet J (2000) Long-term results of titanium alloy smooth cemented femoral stem. In: Caron J, Ferreira A, Picault C (eds) Arthroplastie totale de hanche. Transit Communications, Lyon, pp 237–239Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Skinner JA, Todo S, Taylor M, Wang JS, Pinskerova V, Scott G (2003) Should the cement mantle around the femoral component be thick or thin? J Bone Joint Surg 85-B:45–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Havelin LI, Engesæter LB, Espehaug B, Furnes O, Lie SA, Vollset SE (2000) The Norwegian arthroplasty register. Acta Orthop Scand 71:337–353PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gjengedal E, Uppheim G (1997) Palacos-angiography? Acta Orthop Scand 68:18–19PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Harris WH (1969) Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg 51-A:737–755Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A, Murray D (1996) Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 78:185–190PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Malchau H, Kärrholm J, Xing Wang Y, Herberts P (1995) Accuracy of migration analysis in hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop Scand 66:418–424PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Livermore J, Ilstrup D, Morrey B (1990) Effect of femoral size on wear of the polyethylene acetabular component. J Bone Joint Surg 72-A:518–528Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gruen TA, McNeice GM, Amstutz HC (1979) “Modes of failure” of cemented stem-type femoral components: a radiographic analysis of loosening. Clin Orthop Relat Res 141:17–27PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Engh CA, Massin P, Suthres KE (1989) Roentgenographic assessment of the biological fixation of porous-surfaced femoral components. Clin Orthop Relat Res 284:107–113Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zicat B, Engh CA, Gokcen E (1995) Patterns of osteolysis around total hip component inserted with and without cement. J Bone Joint Surg 77-A:432–439Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Garellick G, malchau H, Herberts P (2000) Survival of hip replacements. A comparison of a randomized trial and a registry. Clin Orthop Clin Res 357:157–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Herberts P, Malchau H (2000) Long-term registration has improved the quality of hip replacement: a review of the Swedish THR Register comparing 160,000 cases. Acta Orthop Scand 71:111–121PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Aamodt A, Nordsletten L, Havelin LI, Indrekvam K, Utvåg SE, Hviding K (2004) Documentation of hip prostheses used in Norway. A critical review of the literature from 1996–2000. Acta Orthop Scand 75:663–676Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Al Hertani W, Waddell JP, Anderson GI (2000) The effect of partial vs. full hydroxyapatite coating on periprosthetic bone quality around the canine madreporic femoral stem. J Biomed Mater Res 53:518–524PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hartofilakidis G, Karachalios T, Karachalios G (2005) The 20-year outcome of the Charnley arthroplasty in younger and older patients. Clin Orthop Relat Res 434:177–182PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wroblewski BM, Fleming PA, Siney PD (1999) Charnley low-friction torque arthroplasty of the hip. 20- to 30-year results. J Bone Joint Surg Br 81:427–430PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hamadouche M, Boutin P, Daussange J, Bolander ME, Sedel L (2002) Alumina-on-alumina total hip arthroplasty: a minimum 18.5-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg 84-A:69–77PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hernigou P (2000) Femoral cement mantle thickness: its influence on the outcome of the femoral part. In: Caton J, Ferreira A, Picault C (eds) Arthroplastie totale de hanche. Transit Communications, Lyon, pp 183–185Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Le Mouel S, Allain J, Goutallier D (1998) Analyse actuarielle a 10 ans d’une cohote de 156 prothéses totales de hanche cimentées e couple de frottement alumina polyethylene. Rev Chir Orthop 84:338–345PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bourne RB, Rorabeck CH, Laupacis A (1995) Total hip replacement; the case for noncemented femoral fixation because of age. Can J Surg 38(Suppl):61–66Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Herberts P, Malchau H (1997) How outcome studies have changed total hip arthroplasty practices in Sweden. Clin Orthop Relat Res 344:44–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Iwase T, Wingstrand I, Persson BM, Kesteris U, Hasegawa Y, Wingstrand H (2002) The ScanHip total hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop Scand 73:54–59PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Johnsson R, Franzen H, Nilsson LT (1994) Combined survivorship and multivariate analysis of revisions in 799 hip prostheses. A 10–20 years review of mechanical loosening. J Bone Joint Surg 76-B:439–443Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    D’Antonio JA, Capello WN, Manley MT, Geesink R (2001) Hydroxyapatite femoral stems for total hip arthroplasty: 10–13 year follow-up. Clin Orthop Relat Res 393:101–111PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Reikerås O, Gunderson RB (2003) Excellent results of HA coating on a grit-blasted stem. Acta Orthop Scand 74:140–145PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Røkkum M, Reigstad A (1999) Total hip replacement with an entirely hydroxyapatite-coated prosthesis. 5 years follow-up of 94 consecutive cases. J Arthroplasty 14:689–699PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Amstutz HC, Nasser S, More RC, Kabo JM (1989) The anthropometric total hip femoral prosthesis; preliminary clinical and roentgenographic findings of exactfit cementless application. Clin Orthop Relat Res 242:104–119PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Langlais F, Kerboull M, Sedel L, Ling RSM (2003) Annotation. The “French Paradox”. J Bone Joint Surg 85B:17–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Skinner JA, Todo S, Taylor M, Wang JS, Pinskerova V, Scott G (2003) Should the cement mantle around the femoral component be thick or thin? J Bone Joint Surg 85-B:45–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Weissman BN, Sosman JL, Braunstein EM, Dadkhahipoor H, Kandarpa K, Thornhill TS, Lowell JD, Sledge CB (1984) Intravenous methylmethacrylate after total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg 66-A:443–450Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Gjengedal E, Uppheim G (1997) Palacos-angiography? Acta Orthop Scand 68:18–19PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Bryant MJ, Kernohan WG, Nixon JR, Mollan RA (1993) A statistical analysis of hip scores. J Bone Joint Surg 75-B:705–709Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Johanson NA, Charlson ME, Szatrowski TP, Ranawat CS (1992) A self-administered hip-rating questionnaire for the assessment of outcome after total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg 74A:587–597Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erling Gjengedal
    • 1
  • Gisle Uppheim
    • 1
  • Håvard Bjerkholt
    • 1
  • Øystein Høvik
    • 1
  • Olav Reikerås
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of OrthopaedicsLovisenberg HospitalOsloNorway
  2. 2.Department of OrthopaedicsRikshospitalet University ClinicOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations