We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
The fate of stable cemented acetabular components retained during revision of a femoral component of a total hip arthroplasty.
Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume 1999 December
BACKGROUND: The decision as to whether to revise or retain a well fixed cemented acetabular component during revision of a femoral component is especially difficult; the rate of loosening of cemented acetabular components is high, whereas that of porous-coated acetabular components inserted during revision is low. However, removal of a well fixed cemented acetabular component can result in increased operative morbidity and cost and in loss of acetabular bone. Data that can be used to predict the long-term survival of retained well fixed cemented acetabular components are therefore needed.
METHODS: We studied the five to thirteen-year clinical and radiographic results in a group of twenty-six consecutive patients in whom a well fixed cemented acetabular component had been retained during revision of a femoral component. Typical demographic data on the patients and information about the components were recorded, and the cemented acetabular components were graded as A through F, according to the system of Ranawat et al., at the time of the femoral revision. The average duration of follow-up was 8.4 years (range, 5.0 to 12.7 years). No patient was lost to follow-up.
RESULTS: Four acetabular components (15 percent) had progressive radiolucency (at forty-eight, forty-eight, fifty-nine, and seventy-five months after the femoral revision) and were considered radiographically loose despite not being associated with symptoms. All four components were graded as either E or F at the time that they were retained during the femoral revision; radiographic loosening was significantly related to these two grades (p < 0.01). No acetabular component with a grade of A, B, C, or D loosened. The components that loosened had been in vivo for a relatively shorter, as opposed to longer, duration before the femoral revision compared with the components that did not loosen (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Retention of the well fixed cemented acetabular components was associated with good clinical results but with a 15 percent rate of loosening. Revision of a cemented acetabular component solely on the basis of the duration that it was in vivo or whether a previous revision had been done does not appear to be warranted. Our findings suggest that acetabular components with a grade of A, B, C, or D at the time of a femoral revision may be retained, as these components continued to function at the time of the five to thirteen-year follow-up in the current study.
METHODS: We studied the five to thirteen-year clinical and radiographic results in a group of twenty-six consecutive patients in whom a well fixed cemented acetabular component had been retained during revision of a femoral component. Typical demographic data on the patients and information about the components were recorded, and the cemented acetabular components were graded as A through F, according to the system of Ranawat et al., at the time of the femoral revision. The average duration of follow-up was 8.4 years (range, 5.0 to 12.7 years). No patient was lost to follow-up.
RESULTS: Four acetabular components (15 percent) had progressive radiolucency (at forty-eight, forty-eight, fifty-nine, and seventy-five months after the femoral revision) and were considered radiographically loose despite not being associated with symptoms. All four components were graded as either E or F at the time that they were retained during the femoral revision; radiographic loosening was significantly related to these two grades (p < 0.01). No acetabular component with a grade of A, B, C, or D loosened. The components that loosened had been in vivo for a relatively shorter, as opposed to longer, duration before the femoral revision compared with the components that did not loosen (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Retention of the well fixed cemented acetabular components was associated with good clinical results but with a 15 percent rate of loosening. Revision of a cemented acetabular component solely on the basis of the duration that it was in vivo or whether a previous revision had been done does not appear to be warranted. Our findings suggest that acetabular components with a grade of A, B, C, or D at the time of a femoral revision may be retained, as these components continued to function at the time of the five to thirteen-year follow-up in the current study.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
Perioperative echocardiographic strain analysis: what anesthesiologists should know.Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia 2024 April 11
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app