Long-Term Success of a Well-Cemented Flanged Ogee Cup

  • John Older


This chapter is entirely devoted to the flanged Ogee cup. Initially, it presents evaluation of a cohort of 268 Ogee cups inserted by a single surgeon in a continuous series of primary Charnley low-friction arthroplasties. Clinically at 20 years, the revision rate for aseptic loosening of the Ogee cup was 2% a probability of 96.8% survival. Radiological evaluation at 13 years showed 89% of cups to have perfect bonding at the bone cement interface. The X-rays at 20 years are still being evaluated, but data suggests the excellent radiological bonding is being preserved. p ]Explanation of the design emphasises that the flange of the Ogee cup has two main functions. It assists pressurisation of the cement and stabilises the cup against the bony rim of the acetabulum. From the clinical and radiological evidence available, the use of the flanged Ogee cup is assisting sound bonding between cup and host bone in the acetabulum.


Aseptic Loosening Acetabular Component Ultra High Molecular Weight Polyethylene Revision Rate Require Revision Surgery 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Charnley J. Low friction arthroplasty of the hip. Springer, Berlin, 1979Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    D’Aubigne MR, Postel M. Functional results of hip arthroplasty with acrylic cement. J Bone Joint Surg 1954: 36A:451Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    De Lee JG, Charnley J. Radiological demarcation of cemented sockets in total hip replacement. Clin Orthop 1976; 121:20Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Frankel A, Balderston RA, Booth RE, Rothman RH. Radiographic demarcation of the acetabular bone cement interface. J Arthroplasty 5(Suppl) 1990; 1Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Garellick G, Malchau H, Herberts P. The Charnley versus the Spectron hip prosthesis. Clinical evaluation. J Arthroplasty 1999; 4:407–413Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Garellick G, Malchau H, Regner H, Herberts P. The Charnley versus the Spectron hip prosthesis. Radiographic evaluation. J Arthroplasty 1999; 4: 414–425Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hodgkinson JP, Maskell AP, Paul A, Wroblewski BM. Flanged acetabular components in cemented Charnley hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg 1993; 75B: 464–467Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kobayashi S, Terayama K. Factors influencing survival of the socket after primary low friction arthroplasty of the hip. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 1993: 112; 56–60PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Parsch D, Diehm C, Schneider S, New A, Breusch SJ. Acetabular cementing technique in THA — flanged versus unflanged cups, cadaver experiments. Acta Orthop Scand 2004; 75(3): 269–275PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shelley P, Wroblewski BM. Socket Design and Current Pressurisation in the Charnley Low Friction Arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg 1988; 79B: 358–363Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Valle CJD, Kaplan K, Jazrawi A, Ahmed S, Jaffe WL. Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty with a Flanged Cemented All-Polyethylene Acetabular Component. J Arthroplasty 2004: 19: 23–26PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wroblewski B M, Siney PD. Charnley low-friction arthroplasty of the hip. Long term results. Clin Orthop 1993: 292; 191–201PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Medizin Verlag Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Older
    • 1
  1. 1.King Edward VII HospitalUK

Personalised recommendations