Till startsida
Webbkarta
Till innehåll Läs mer om hur kakor används på gu.se

Cement-in-cement revision of the femoral stem: analysis of 1179 first-time revisions in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register.

Artikel i vetenskaplig tidskrift
Författare Peter Cnudde
Johan Kärrholm
Ola Rolfson
A J Timperley
Maziar Mohaddes
Publicerad i The bone & joint journal
Volym 99-B
Nummer/häfte 4 Supple B
Sidor 27-32
ISSN 2049-4408
Publiceringsår 2017
Publicerad vid Institutionen för kliniska vetenskaper, sektionen för anestesi, biomaterial och ortopedi, Avdelningen för ortopedi
Institutionen för kliniska vetenskaper, sektionen för anestesi, biomaterial och ortopedi
Sidor 27-32
Språk en
Länkar dx.doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.99B4.B...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...
Ämnesord Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip, methods, Bone Cements, Cementation, methods, Device Removal, methods, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Hip Prosthesis, Humans, Kaplan-Meier Estimate, Male, Middle Aged, Prosthesis Design, Prosthesis Failure, Registries, Reoperation, methods, statistics & numerical data, Sweden, Treatment Outcome
Ämneskategorier Ortopedi, Klinisk medicin

Sammanfattning

Compared with primary total hip arthroplasty (THA), revision surgery can be challenging. The cement-in-cement femoral revision technique involves removing a femoral component from a well-fixed femoral cement mantle and cementing a new stem into the original mantle. This technique is widely used and when carried out for the correct indications, is fast, relatively inexpensive and carries a reduced short-term risk for the patient compared with the alternative of removing well-fixed cement. We report the outcomes of this procedure when two commonly used femoral stems are used.We identified 1179 cement-in-cement stem revisions involving an Exeter or a Lubinus stem reported to the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register (SHAR) between January 1999 and December 2015. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed.Survivorship is reported up to six years and was better in the Exeter group (91% standard deviation (sd) 2.8% versus 85% sd 5.0%) (p = 0.02). There was, however, no significant difference in the survival of the stem and risk of re-revision for any reason (p = 0.58) and for aseptic loosening (p = 0.97), between revisions in which the Exeter stem (94% sd 2.2%; 98% sd 1.6%) was used compared with those in which the Lubinus stem (95% sd 3.2%; 98% sd 2.2%) was used. The database did not allow identification of whether a further revision was indicated for loosening of the acetabular or femoral component or both.The cement-in-cement technique for revision of the femoral component gave promising results using both designs of stem, six years post-operatively. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B(4 Supple B):27-32.

Sidansvarig: Webbredaktion|Sidan uppdaterades: 2012-09-11
Dela:

På Göteborgs universitet använder vi kakor (cookies) för att webbplatsen ska fungera på ett bra sätt för dig. Genom att surfa vidare godkänner du att vi använder kakor.  Vad är kakor?