Advertisement

Migration Pattern and Outcome of Cemented Stems in Sweden

  • Jeffrey Geller
  • Henrik Malchau
  • Johan Kärrholm

Summary

In this chapter we will focus on the femoral side of cemented hip implants and review the outcome in the Swedish Hip Registry. We will also describe the migration pattern of different stem designs over their lifespan and how this information contributes to the long-term outcomes of some of the more commonly used prostheses. Much of this data has been collected through studies using Radio Stereometric Analysis (RSA) data and will continue to provide further insight as these patients are tracked to obtain long term data. Presently, this data has shown that femoral stems that subside more than 0.1 mm in the first 2 years are at a significantly higher risk of failure than stems that exhibit less subsidence.

Keywords

Femoral Component Surface Finish Aseptic Loosening Femoral Stem Cement Mantle 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Anthony PP, Gie GA, Howie CR et al. Localised endosteal bone lysis in relation to the femoral components of cemented total hip arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Br 72:971, 1990PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berry DJ, Harmsen WS, Cabanela ME, et al. Twenty-five-year survivorship of two thousand consecutive primary Charnley total hip replacements: factors affecting survivorship of acetabular and femoral components. J Bone Joint Surg Am 84-A:171, 2002PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Britton AR, Murray DW, Bulstrode CJ, et al. Long-term comparison of Charnley and Stanmore design total hip replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Br 78:802, 1996PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Callaghan JJ, Templeton JE, Liu SS, et al. Results of Charnley total hip arthroplasty at a minimum of thirty years. A concise follow-up of a previous report. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86-A:690, 2004PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Clohisy JC, Harris WH: Primary hybrid total hip replacement, performed with insertion of the acetabular component without cement and a precoat femoral component with cement. An average ten-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 81:247, 1999PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Crowninshield RD, Jennings JD, Laurent ML, et al. Cemented femoral component surface finish mechanics. Clin Orthop:90, 1998Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Duffy GP, Muratoglu OK, Biggs SA, et al. A critical assessment of proximal macrotexturing on cemented femoral components. J Arthroplasty 16:42, 2001PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ebramzadeh E, Sangiorgio SN, Longjohn DB, et al. Initial stability of cemented femoral stems as a function of surface finish, collar, and stem size. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86-A:106, 2004PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Freeman MA, Plante-Bordeneuve P: Early migration and late aseptic failure of proximal femoral prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Br 76:432, 1994PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Harris WH: Is it advantageous to strengthen the cement-metal interface and use a collar for cemented femoral components of total hip replacements? Clin Orthop Relat Res:67, 1992Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Herberts PMH, Garellick G: Annual Report 2003. The Swedish National Hip Arthroplasty Register, in www.jru.orthop.gu.se, 2003Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Huiskes R, Verdonschot N, Nivbrant B: Migration, stem shape, and surface finish in cemented total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop:103, 1998Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Issack PS, Botero HG, Hiebert RN, et al. Sixteen-year follow-up of the cemented spectron femoral stem for hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 18:925, 2003CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jaffe WL, Hawkins CA: Normalized and proportionalized cemented femoral stem survivorship at 15 years. J Arthroplasty 14:708, 1999CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kärrholm J, Nivbrant B, Thanner J, Anderberg C, Börlin N, Herberts P, Malchau H. Radiosstereometric evaluation of hip implant design and surface finish. Scientific Exhibition, AAOS,Orlando, USA, 2000.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kärrholm J, Borssen B, Lowenhielm G, et al. Does early micromotion of femoral stem prostheses matter? 4-7-year stereoradiographic follow-up of 84 cemented prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Br 76:912, 1994PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Krismer M, Biedermann R, Stockl B, et al. The prediction of failure of the stem in THR by measurement of early migration using EBRA-FCA. Einzel-Bild-Roentgen-Analyse-femoral component analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 81:273, 1999CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Massoud SN, Hunter JB, Holdsworth BJ, et al. Early femoral loosening in one design of cemented hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 79:603, 1997CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Meneghini RM, Feinberg JR, Capello WN: Primary hybrid total hip arthroplasty with a roughened femoral stem: integrity of the stem-cement interface. J Arthroplasty 18:299, 2003CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rasquinha VJ, Ranawat CS, Dua V, et al. A prospective, randomized, double-blind study of smooth versus rough stems using cement fixation: minimum 5-year follow-up. J Arthroplasty 19:2, 2004PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sporer SM, Callaghan JJ, Olejniczak JP, et al. The effects of surface roughness and polymethylmethacrylate precoating on the radiographic and clinical results of the Iowa hip prosthesis. A study of patients less than fifty years old. J Bone Joint Surg Am 81:481, 1999PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Thanner J, Freij-Larsson C, Karrholm J, et al. Evaluation of Boneloc. Chemical and mechanical properties, and a randomized clinical study of 30 total hip arthroplasties. Acta Orthop Scand 66:207, 1995PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Verdonschot N, Huiskes R: The effects of cement-stem debonding in THA on the long-term failure probability of cement. J Biomech 30:795, 1997CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Verdonschot N, Tanck E, Huiskes R: Effects of prosthesis surface roughness on the failure process of cemented hip implants after stem-cement debonding. J Biomed Mater Res 42:554, 1998CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Walker PS, Mai SF, Cobb AG, et al. Prediction of clinical outcome of THR from migration measurements on standard radiographs. A study of cemented Charnley and Stanmore femoral stems. J Bone Joint Surg Br 77:705, 1995PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wroblewski BM, Siney PD, Fleming PA: Triple taper polished cemented stem in total hip arthroplasty: rationale for the design, surgical technique, and 7 years of clinical experience. J Arthroplasty 16:37, 2001CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Medizin Verlag Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeffrey Geller
    • 1
  • Henrik Malchau
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Johan Kärrholm
    • 5
  1. 1.Orthopaedic SurgeryColumbia University College of Physicians and SurgeonsNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Harvard Medical SchoolUSA
  3. 3.Orthopaedic Biomechanics and Biomaterials LaboratoryUSA
  4. 4.Adult Reconstructive Unit, Orthopedic DepartmentMassachusetts General HospitalBostonUSA
  5. 5.Orthopaedic DepartmentSahlgrenska University HospitalGöteborgSweden

Personalised recommendations