These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Revision of a failed cemented total hip prosthesis with insertion of an acetabular component without cement and a femoral component with cement. A five to eight-year follow-up study.
    Author: Weber KL, Callaghan JJ, Goetz DD, Johnston RC.
    Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am; 1996 Jul; 78(7):982-94. PubMed ID: 8698734.
    Abstract:
    Sixty-one consecutive so-called hybrid revision total hip arthroplasties were performed in fifty-five patients by one surgeon, from 1986 through 1988, for mechanical failure of a cemented total hip prosthesis. In all of the patients, the acetabular and femoral components were revised to a porous-coated Harris-Galante acetabular component inserted without cement and an Iowa femoral component inserted with cement. Contemporary cementing techniques were used, but structural bone graft was not. The over-all prevalence of repeat revision for aseptic loosening was 0 per cent for the acetabular components and 3 per cent (two hips) for the femoral components. In addition, 2 per cent (one) of the acetabular components and 5 per cent (three) of the femoral components demonstrated radiographic evidence of loosening. In the forty-three patients (forty-nine hips) who were alive at an average of seventy-four months (range, sixty to ninety-five months) after the revision, none of the acetabular components and 2 per cent (one) of the femoral components were revised again for aseptic loosening. An additional 2 per cent (one) of the acetabular components and 6 per cent (three) of the femoral components were radiographically loose. Ninety-eight per cent (forty-one) of the forty-two living patients (98 per cent [forty-seven] of the forty-eight hips) who had a clinical examination at least five years after the revision had increased function; 90 per cent (thirty-eight) of these patients (forty-four [92 per cent] of the hips) were satisfied with the result. The group that had a hybrid revision was compared with a group of seventy patients (seventy-four hips) who had had a revision total hip arthroplasty with use of contemporary cementing techniques for both components. These revisions had been performed by the same surgeon, before he performed the hybrid revisions, and the prevalence of repeat revision of the acetabular component was 7 per cent (five hips) and that of the femoral component was 4 per cent (three hips). In addition, 16 per cent (twelve) of the acetabular components and 3 per cent (two) of the femoral components were radiographically loose. The comparison group was not a consecutive series, as only the patients who had had radiographs made five to eight years after the revision were evaluated. In the fifty-two such patients (fifty-six hips) who were alive at five years after the revision with cement (average duration of radiographic follow-up, seventy-seven months; range, sixty to ninety-nine months), 9 per cent (five) of the acetabular components and 5 per cent (three) of the femoral components were revised again for aseptic loosening. An additional 21 per cent (twelve) of the acetabular components and 4 per cent (two) of the femoral components were radiographically loose. The results of the present study demonstrated a significant improvement (p = 0.0001) in the survival of the acetabular component of so-called hybrid revision total hip arthroplasties compared with that of revision total hip arthroplasties with cement performed by the same surgeon and followed for a comparable period.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]