Cement-in-cement femoral component revision : a comparison of two different taper-slip designs with medium-term follow up

Kennedy, John W. and Ng, Nigel Y. B. and Young, David and Kane, Nicholas and Marsh, Andrew G. and Meek, R. M. Dominic (2021) Cement-in-cement femoral component revision : a comparison of two different taper-slip designs with medium-term follow up. The Bone & Joint Journal, 103-B (7). pp. 1215-1221. ISSN 2049-4394 (https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.103B7.BJJ-2020-1...)

[thumbnail of Kennedy-etal-BJJ-2021-Cement-in-cement-femoral-component-revision]
Preview
 Text. Filename: Kennedy_etal_BJJ_2021_Cement_in_cement_femoral_component_revision.pdf
Accepted Author Manuscript
Download (457kB)| Preview

Abstract

Aims Cement-in-cement revision of the femoral component represents a widely practised technique for a variety of indications in revision total hip arthroplasty. In this study, we compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of two polished tapered femoral components. Methods From our prospectively collated database, we identified all patients undergoing cement-in-cement revision from January 2005 to January 2013 who had a minimum of two years' follow-up. All cases were performed by the senior author using either an Exeter short revision stem or the C-Stem AMT high offset No. 1 prosthesis. Patients were followed-up annually with clinical and radiological assessment. Results A total of 97 patients matched the inclusion criteria (50 Exeter and 47 C-Stem AMT components). There were no significant differences between the patient demographic data in either group. Mean follow-up was 9.7 years. A significant improvement in Oxford Hip Score (OHS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and 12-item Short-Form Survey (SF-12) scores was observed in both cohorts. Leg lengths were significantly shorter in the Exeter group, with a mean of -4 mm in this cohort compared with 0 mm in the C-Stem AMT group. One patient in the Exeter group had early evidence of radiological loosening. In total, 16 patients (15%) underwent further revision of the femoral component (seven in the C-Stem AMT group and nine in the Exeter group). No femoral components were revised for aseptic loosening. There were two cases of femoral component fracture in the Exeter group. Conclusion Our series shows promising mid-term outcomes for the cement-in-cement revision technique using either the Exeter or C-Stem AMT components. These results demonstrate that cement-in-cement revision using a double or triple taper-slip design is a safe and reliable technique when used for the correct indications. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(7):1215?1221.

ORCID iDs

Kennedy, John W., Ng, Nigel Y. B., Young, David ORCID logoORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3652-0513, Kane, Nicholas, Marsh, Andrew G. and Meek, R. M. Dominic;
CORE (COnnecting REpositories)