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

John W. Kennedy, Nigel Y. B. Ng, David Young, Nicholas Kane, Andrew G. Marsh, R. M. Dominic Meek

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

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.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1215-1221
Number of pages7
JournalThe Bone & Joint Journal
Volume103-B
Issue number7
Early online date1 Jul 2021
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jul 2021

Keywords

  • cement-in-cement revision
  • total hip arthroplasty
  • prosthesis

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Cement-in-cement femoral component revision: a comparison of two different taper-slip designs with medium-term follow up'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this