header advert
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

General Orthopaedics

A COMPARISON OF UNCEMENTED VERSUS CEMENTED OUTCOMES OF IMPACTION FEMORAL ALLOGRAFTING AT REVISION HIP ARTHOPLASTY

Combined Services Orthopaedic Society (CSOS) - 32nd Meeting



Abstract

An attempt to analyse whether impaction allografting without cement is more or less satisfactory than the technique with the addition of cement is compromised by conflicting reports of where the migration actually occurs. In some cemented series distal migration of the prosthesis within the cement mantle has been recorded as well as migration of the whole cement/prosthesis construct into the graft.

Two prospective consecutive series of revision hip arthroplasties by a single surgeon:- Group 1; Uncemented impaction grafting revision hip replacement in a series of 30 patients (33 hips). Group 2; Cemented impaction grafting revision hip replacement in a series of 30 patients (31 hips). Group demographics were similar. Each case used the same design of hip implant with the only difference in design being a proximal hydroxyapatite coating used on the uncemented implants.

Follow-up ranged from 2 to 17 years for the uncemented group and from 1 to 11 years for the cemented group. A validated hip scoring system was employed at regular follow up incorporating pain and functional assessment.

Migration rates for the uncemented group were 0 to 15 mm for 30 hips; however 3 hips were revised early due to excessive migration. 3 hips sustained early complications (1 fracture, 1 dislocation, 1 varus malposition of stem). Migration rates for the cemented group were 0 to 9 mm for 29 hips, however the remaining 3 hips were revised due to excessive migration (up to 33mm). Although similar results were obtained in terms of success and also pain and function scores, marginal improvement in results did occur with the cemented series overall. Statistical significance was not reached however. More sinkage occurred in the uncemented group overall, the majority occurring in the first 6 post-operative months. Part of the improvement with the cemented series results may be explained by the improved techniques achieved whilst performing the uncemented series.

These results from a single surgeon demonstrate that the method is highly technique dependent and relies on adequate graft impaction. With sufficient graft and an appropriate prosthetic design, cement is not essential to the early success of this method. However, the extent of the initial migration did not accurately predict a successful outcome for the procedure. The absence of cement removes any confusion as to the location of any migration.