|
 
 |
| ORIGINAL ARTICLE |
|
| Year : 2022 | Volume
: 5
| Issue : 3 | Page : 138-144 |
|
Ten years' follow-up for cemented hip arthroplasty in patients <60 years of age with standardization of cementing technique: A multicentric study
Imran Sajid1, Javed Jameel2, Sukhvinder Singh3, Surya Pratap Singh4, Ankit Varshney5, Sabeel Ahmad1
1 Department of Orthopaedics, F.H. Medical College and Hospital, Agra, Uttar Pradesh, India
2 Department Of Orthopaedics, Hamdard Institute of Medical Science and Research (HIMSR), New Delhi, India
3 Department of Orthopaedics, Atal Bihari Vajpayee Institute of Medical Sciences, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi, India
4 Department of Orthopaedics, Northan Railway Divisional Hospital, New Delhi, India
5 Department of Orthopaedics, Centre for Trauma and Joint Replacement, Agra, Uttar Pradesh, India
| Date of Submission | 18-Feb-2022 |
| Date of Decision | 11-Mar-2022 |
| Date of Acceptance | 16-Mar-2022 |
| Date of Web Publication | 1-Sep-2022 |
Correspondence Address:
Sabeel Ahmad
Department of Orthopaedics, F.H. Medical College and Hospital, Agra, Uttar Pradesh
India
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
DOI: 10.4103/jodp.jodp_12_22
Introduction: Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is the preferred treatment for persistent disability due to hip pathologies and restoration of normal functions. Although there is a general consensus of using un-cemented implants for adults and elderly with good bone quality and cemented for senior citizen population, implant choice for middle aged group of 40 years to 60 years is still a subject of debate, especially in financial constrained situations. In our study, we have determined the implant survivorship and functional outcomes of cemented THA in patients between 40 and 60 years of age, at the minimum follow-up of 10 years with emphasis on standardization of cementing technique. Materials and Methods: This is a retrospective study including 25 patients who had undergone cemented hip arthroplasty. Data were collected from five different surgical centres, whose orthopedic surgeons had common surgical training and were following a common cementing technique. Results: Mean Harris Hip Score of 25 hips at final follow-up was 90 and Visual Analog Scale 1.88. The functional outcome was good to excellent at final follow-up in 89% hips. There was a significant improvement in pain and activity level after surgery (P < 0.001) and maintained at the final follow-up. Conclusion: Our series provides evidence for utility of cemented hip implants in low functional demand patients along with emphasizing the importance of a good cementing technique for the long-term survival of cemented hip arthroplasty in the age group of 40–60 years.
Keywords: Cementing technique, survivorship, total hip arthroplasty
How to cite this article:
Sajid I, Jameel J, Singh S, Singh SP, Varshney A, Ahmad S. Ten years' follow-up for cemented hip arthroplasty in patients <60 years of age with standardization of cementing technique: A multicentric study. J Orthop Dis Traumatol 2022;5:138-44 |
How to cite this URL:
Sajid I, Jameel J, Singh S, Singh SP, Varshney A, Ahmad S. Ten years' follow-up for cemented hip arthroplasty in patients <60 years of age with standardization of cementing technique: A multicentric study. J Orthop Dis Traumatol [serial online] 2022 [cited 2023 Jun 6];5:138-44. Available from: https://jodt.org/text.asp?2022/5/3/138/355235 |
| Introduction | |  |
For humans, hip joint has as paramount importance for their day-to-day activities to provide maximum range of motion in multi-planar axis to transmitting body weight; this joint has maximum load bearing forces for a long period. Any pathology of the hip is much debilitating for patient as its affects their gait pattern and mobility.[1],[2] Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is the most productive procedure and choice for long-term pain relief and restoration of normal function in pathological hips. Hip replacement can be cemented or noncemented. In cemented THA, polymethyl-methacrylate (PMMA) is used between bone and implant. PMMA modulus of elasticity is very similar to the bone and resistant to compressive forces but not to shear and strain.[3] Survivability of cemented arthroplasty mainly depends on the quality of cementation. Long-terms failures of cemented arthroplasties are due to the formation of osteolytic areas.
Immediate fixation of uncemented prostheses depends on primary fixation or macro-locking. Macro-locking occurs at the time of prosthesis insertion which provide snuggly adjustment of prosthesis with bone that may be strengthened by fins, grooves, or screws.[4],[5] Long-term survivorship of un-cemented THA depends mainly on osteo-integration/micro-locking. Osteo-integration mainly result of bone ingrowth and lead to bony bridge formations between implants pores and bone. It is very controversial topic to compare the efficacy of cemented prosthesis with un-cemented in THA. Universal consensus regarding superiority of un-cemented THA in young adults may require revision.[4],[5],[6],[7],[8] However, in old age, around 50 years with moderate activity level; cemented THA becomes a viable option. There are many factors which can influence the survivorship of both cemented and un-cemented implants are geometry, materials, surface finishes, and bearings.[6] Moreover, study-specific factors such as surgical approach, techniques, and study design also play an important role in survivorship.[6] In this study, we determine the implant survivorship and functional outcomes of cemented THA in patients <60 years of age at a minimum follow-up of 10 years with emphasis on standardization of cementing technique.
| Materials and Methods | | |
It is a retrospective study in which radiographic review with proper follow-ups of patients who underwent cemented THA. Data were collected from five surgical centers [Table 1], whose orthopedic surgeons had common surgical training and were following a common cementing technique (at the end details of surgeons and data collected from different hospital given). All patients between the ages of 40 and 60 undergoing primary cemented THA. Between January 2001 and January 2010 were reviewed.
Inclusion criteria
Primary hip pathology (Avascular necrosis of femoral head (AVN), Ankylosing spondylitis (AS), Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA), Osteoarthritis (OA), and septic/infective sequelae), age 40–60 years of age, lower socioeconomic strata, and lower functional demands.
Exclusion criteria
Age <40 or >60 years, developmental dysplasia of hip, bone defect in acetabulum/femur, and revision surgery.
THA was performed in 34 patients. Nine patients were lost to follow-up, 25 hips left for this study. The mean age was 49 (39–59) years. The minimum follow-up was 10 years. Demographically, 25 cases were taken, of which 17 were male and 8 were female, 20 hips right and 5 left in which 12 AVN [Figure 1], 2 osteoarthritis, 5 ankylosing spondylitis, 4 rheumatoid arthritis and 2 old infective sequelae [Table 2]. All the surgeries were performed by 5 consultant orthopedic surgeons using posterior moor's approach. A standardized cementation technique was used by all surgeons. | Figure 1: Preoperative radiograph of pelvis with B/L hip suggestive of AVN right femoral head (FicatArlet Stage 3), postoperative day 1, check the cement penetration in the acetabulum and total “white out” of femoral component with distal cement plug
Click here to view |
Patients reviewed at 6 weeks then 3, 6, 12 months, followed by 2, 5, 7, and 10 years. Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and Harris Hip Score (HHS) were used as measuring tools of functional outcome and score <70 considered as a failure [Table 3]. Pain recorded by VAS score. Radiographs were taken at every follow-up [Figure 2]. All the radiographs were analyzed for signs of implant failure, wear, and loosening [Figure 3]. Femoral loosening defined by Harris classification, probable and possible (Harris et al. 1982).[36] Progressive radiolucent lines in 2 or more Charnley and De Lee zones were considered the signs of loosening in the acetabulum (De Lee and Charnley 1976).[37] The change in implant position or migration and eccentric wear of the cup were also considered the signs of implant failure. | Figure 2: Sequential follow-up radiographs: At 1, 5, 7, and 10 years, respectively, shows excellent result without loosening and dislocation of implant. From same patient
Click here to view |
 | Figure 3: (a) Radiographs of aseptic loosening of left femur with left acetabulum at risk 2 years follow-up, (b) Acetabulum - No interdigitating of cement in the bone with normal femoral component, (c) 15 months' follow-up showing lucency at Cup - Bone interface - Slippage of cup as compared to earlier radiograph. Different patients have different complications which are shown here
Click here to view |
 | Table 3: Visual Analog Scale and Harris Hip Scores at different time periods
Click here to view |
Standardized cementation technique
Main aim for cementing is to penetrate the cement deeply and densely into trabecular bone to form a strong mechanical interlock. Third generation cementing used pulse lavage, distal cement restrictor and centralizer, retrograde cement application, acetabulum pressurizer in all the cases. For acetabulum, high viscosity cement (smart-set) is used and for femur routine cement (low viscosity).
Acetabular cementing
Because of large surface area of acetabulum with wide opening and a discontinuity in the wall under the transverse ligament, this is difficult to hold the cement that's why cement application is done when cement is nonsticky and can be rolled in a ball shape. Timing of cement application and cup introduction influences cement penetration because of time-dependent changes in the viscosity of the cement. The basic principle is that the lower viscosity, better the penetration (Krause et al. 1982, Noble and Swarts, 1983, Stone et al. 1996).[38],[39],[40] However, it is more difficult to handle at low viscosity and acetabulum leakage around the edges becomes more of a problem, thus putting higher demands on transforming the cavity into a closed space during cement pressurization, so antibiotic mixed smart set cement (high viscosity) is generally used for acetabulum.
Acetabulum preparation
Taking all universal precautions painting and draping done. Standard operating theater with laminar flow, Moore's approach used to reach hip joint. Acetabulum prepared by obtaining cancellous bed of bleeding bone using sequential hemispherical reamers of increasing diameter. Multiple drill holes (dia-0.5 and depth 1 cm) were made in the acetabular bed to increase the surface area for cement. Pulse lavage used to remove debris and a hydrogen-peroxide soaked swab followed by dry swab was inserted into the acetabulum before cementing to create a dry surface for cementing.
Cement preparation
Prechilled smart set cement was used for acetabulum [Figure 4]. Manual method of mixing in a bowl with spoon, as vacuum mixing was not available at all centers. Once the monomer (liquid) is poured over the polymer (powder) in a bowl, a timer started. A strict protocol of slow uniform mixing was followed, so air bubbles formation could not happens during the mixing, resulting in a homogeneous mixture without affecting viscosity. Mixing takes 2–3 min and leads to a sticky liquid which is a waiting phase. At this waiting phase (usually lasts 2–3 min), surgical gloves to be changed so that the blood on surgical gloves does not mixes with the cement. | Figure 4: Cement kept in the refrigerator, cement in powder form, smooth and slow mixing of cement in liquid form, liquid cement loaded in cement gun (ready for femoral cementing)
Click here to view |
Cement application
Working phase when sticky cement converted to nonsticky dough and loses its shiny sheen to a dull texture. Working phase usually lasts 10–15 min, with prechilling further extending. Cement is applied through fingers in the acetabulum cavity and special emphasis is given over the medial load bearing bone. Cement is pushed in acetabulum through fingers. Pressurizations result in greater penetration of the bone, improves bone cement interface. A pressurizer is used [Figure 5]a to give a uniform pressure for at least 30 s before cup implantation so that the cement goes deep inside the trabecular of acetabulum bone. Cup is inserted and maintained in its intended inclination and version till the cement hardens. Whole process of cement mixing to cement hardening usually takes around 15–18 min with around 10–12 min as the working phase. | Figure 5: (a) 360° view of acetabulum showing peg holes, nonsticky cement rolled in a ball shape; Balled up doughy cement pushed into the acetabulum and uniformly spread using fingers, use of cement pusher to spread the cement inside bone and indentation holes. Cement Pushers - Blue dome used direct on cement and SS dome used over the acetabulum cup, (b) Cement restrictor insertion, cement inserted in the canal by using cement gun, stem being inserted into the canal after cement insertion, stem maintained in correct version with a finger acting as proximal seal to prevent cement escape
Click here to view |
Femur cementing
Femur preparation
After box cut femoral canal broached and cleaned with pulse lavage to remove the fat, blood and debris. Lavage reduces the chance of fat embolism and pulmonary complications which must be done before any instrumentation in the medullary cavity.[9],[10],[11] After lavage, canal should be plugged with cement restrictor. This ensures a well-defined close cavity for good filling of the cement and pressurization to reduce physiological disturbance while prosthesis insertion.[12] After suctioning, the canal is studded with hydrogen peroxide-soaked gauze along with infant feeding tube while cement is being prepared.
Cement preparation
Prechilled low viscosity cement used for femur. Rest same as above in acetabular cementing. Mixing usually takes 2–3 min and leads to a sticky liquid which is a waiting phase. The sticky liquid is filled in cement gun.
Cement insertion
After removing the hydrogen peroxide-soaked gauze and leaving the infant feeding tube connected to suction inside the canal, cement is introduced in to canal, retrograde manner with a cement gun and a proximal seal (finger over the canal) to maintain pressure. The pressure has to be maintained until viscosity is enough to resist cement extrusion. Suction through the infant feeding tube helps in removing any air bubbles/blood. Any excess cement is pushed back inside the canal through digital pressurization.
Stem insertion
Stem is inserted in the desired ante-version and to the preplanned depth with a small cuff of cement around the distal tip of the stem. The design of the stem along with its polished nature helps to pressurize cement during stem insertion. Pressure is also maintained by placing thumb over calcar while implant insertion thus preventing cement extrusion then left cement placed around neck to strengthen the collar. A continuous pressure on the stem in desired version is maintained until cement polymerization is complete [Figure 5]b.
Statistical analysis
Paired t-test used to see the postsurgical improvement and KaplanMeier graph to determine the survivorship of implants; P < 0.05 used as to measure statistical significance.
| Results | | |
Demographic data with preoperative diagnosis and sample size are given in [Table 2]. Mean HHS at the final follow-up was 90. Looking at HHS, functional outcome was good to excellent at the end of study in 89% hips. There was significant improvement in pain (VAS-1.88 [Standard deviation]) and activity level after surgery (P < 0.001) that maintained at the final follow up [Table 3]. Most common complication noticed that stitch line infection (in 2 patients) [Table 4]. All were managed by local debridement and antibiotics. Two cases had postoperative dislocations which were managed with closed reduction and a boot bar application. Both patients had good HHS at 2 years follow-up. Radiographic finding at final follow-up showed loosening of femoral stem in one patient and acetabular component in another. Revision surgery planned for these two patients. Survivorship at the end of the study using the Kaplan − Meier graph found to be 97% (97% confidence interval [CI] 95–98). In those patient who had undergone revision surgery, survivorship dips up to 83% (95% CI 79–86).
| Discussion | | |
THA as the treatment of choice for hip pathologies since a long time in the literature. With the time cost of implant also has increased. But still, there is a lot of debate over the choice of THA-cemented or un-cemented. The advantage of using bone cement in hip arthroplasty is achievement of initial stability of the implant. Dr Charnley published six cases of cemented THA in J. Bone and Jt. Surg. in 1960[13] emphasizing that cement function as grout rather than glue, which fixes the implant by interlocking rather than adhesion that fills every crevices and slits in the interior of femoral canal which leads to transmit the patient's body weight over large surface area of bone and prevent implant failure.[12],[13]
Potential risk of cementing is cardiopulmonary disturbance, called “bone cement implantation syndrome.”[8],[9],[10] Aseptic failures of cemented arthroplasties were thought to result from a biologic reaction to the cement, and term “cement disease” was given, but it has been proved due to polythene debris.[11] Charnley's hip arthroplasties showed good result with and incidence of mechanical failure at bone-cement interface is 2.2% at 8 years of follow up.[14] In early days of THA, very little significance was given to the cement technique. Work from Robin Ling in Exeter and John Charnley in Washington enlightened the mechanical properties of bone-cement and importance of cementing technique to increase the survivability of THA. Bone-cement acts as grout, making the mechanical interlock between interior of bone and prosthesis, which lead to transmit the physiological load to bone.[15] It leads to form extensive micro-interlocks which are the key success of cemented prosthesis. These interlocks optimize the load carriage to bone and reduce the stress during repeated cycles of loading and unloading, this reduces the formation of bio-membrane/fibrous tissue at bone-cement interface thus decreases the chance of implant loosening.[15]
Modern cementing techniques have improved survivorship in younger patients as well.[16],[17],[18] Both pressurization and lavage of cancellous bone have been identified to be the most significant factors with regard to improved cement interdigitating with bone.[19],[20],[21],[22]
Polymerization of cement has a direct relationship with temperature. Debrunner and Wettstein[23] seen that increasing the room temperature by 10° C (18°F) decreased the time to set by a factor of one and half to two and vice versa. Because it is often difficult for a surgeon to control the temperature of the operating room, the monomer, the powder and the mixing vessels should be cooled. In our study we have precooled the cement monomer for all cases which gave us the working time for cement close to 10 min.
Aim of cementing is to achieve total “white out” for femoral component as given by Barrack's femoral cementation quality grading system.[24] many clinical studies comparing patients before and after the introduction of modern cementing techniques have confirmed the benefit of improved cement application techniques;[25],[26],[27],[28],[29] and the same benefit being seen in young patients also.[17],[18] Further if the revision risk is considered as measured outcome, the Swedish Hip Registry has provided the evidence to support this relationship.[26] it's also considered that modern cementing technique including distal and proximal cement restrictor, pulse lavage, cement gun for cementing and thorough canal cleaning (4th generation cementing) play important role to reduce the risk of revision surgery by approximate 20%.[30] For all our cases we have followed the same. Our results are comparable to studies.[31],[32],[33],[34],[35]
HHS, VAS scores and functional outcome of our study is good to excellent at final follow up which is comparable with other series from different specialty centers or teaching hospitals with long term follow up (Lehtimäki et al. 1997, Goodman et al. 2014).[41],[42] Majority of our patients were pain free and well-functioning hips at final follow up [Table 3]. In this series deep infection was negligible (0%) comparing with others 1.2%–8% (Wroblewski et al. 2009, Warth et al. 2014).[43],[44]
Get it right first time reported by British Orthopaedics Association recognized the need of THA implants for standardize use in the National Health Service with more towards cemented once (Briggs 2012).[45]
Short coming of our study is small sample size, though surgeons learned from same institute but different set-ups could have discrepancies but not major accepted by Author. Another relative weakness is varied diagnosis included, which mimics variety of pathology in this age group that requires THA.
| Conclusion | | |
The correct cementing technique is important for the longevity of the cemented implants. Our series provides evidence for the utility of established cemented hip implants for low socioeconomic status and moderate-to-low functional demand of the patients, along with identifying standard cementing technique which if followed, has proven the best long-term survival of cemented hip arthroplasty in young adults.
Financial support and sponsorship
Nil.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
| References | | |
| 1. | Bergmann G, Deuretzbacher G, Heller M, Graichen F, Rohlmann A, Strauss J, et al. Hip contact forces and gait patterns from routine activities. J Biomech 2001;34:859-71.  |
| 2. | Charles MN, Bourne RB, Davey JR, Greenwald AS, Morrey BF, Rorabeck CH. Soft-tissue balancing of the hip: The role of femoral offset restoration. Instr Course Lect 2005;54:131-41. |
| 3. | Webb JC, Spencer RF. The role of polymethylmethacrylate bone cement in modern orthopaedic surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2007;89:851-7. |
| 4. | Sporer SM, Paprosky WG. Biologic fixation and bone ingrowth. Orthop Clin North Am 2005;36:105-11, vii. |
| 5. | Hozack WJ, Rothman RH, Eng K, Mesa J. Primary cementless hip arthroplasty with a titanium plasma sprayed prosthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996;333:217-25. PMID: 8981899. |
| 6. | Michelson JD, Riley LH Jr. Considerations in the comparison of cemented and cementless total hip prostheses. J Arthroplasty 1989;4:327-34. |
| 7. | Lee JM. The current concepts of total hip arthroplasty. Hip Pelvis 2016;28:191-200. |
| 8. | Ereth MH, Weber JG, Abel MD, Lennon RL, Lewallen DG, Ilstrup DM, et al. Cemented versus noncemented total hip arthroplasty – Embolism, hemodynamics, and intrapulmonary shunting. Mayo Clin Proc 1992;67:1066-74. |
| 9. | Byrick RJ, Bell RS, Kay JC, Waddell JP, Mullen JB. High-volume, high-pressure pulsatile lavage during cemented arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1989;71:1331-6. |
| 10. | Christie J, Robinson CM, Singer B, Ray DC. Medullary lavage reduces embolic phenomena and cardiopulmonary changes during cemented hemiarthroplasty. Bone Joint Surg Br 1995;77:456-9. |
| 11. | Breusch SJ, Reitzel T, Schneider U, Volkmann M, Ewerbeck V, Lukoschek M. Cemented hip prosthesis implantation – Decreasing the rate of fat embolism with pulsed pressure lavage. Orthopade 2000;29:578-86. |
| 12. | Heisel C, Norman T, Rupp R, Pritsch M, Ewerbeck V, Breusch SJ. In vitro performance of intramedullary cement restrictors in total hip arthroplasty. J Biomech 2003;36:835-43. |
| 13. | Gomez PF, Morcuende JA. Historical and economic perspective on Sir John Charnley, Chas F. Thackray Limited, and the early arthoplasty industry. Iowa Orthop J 2005;25:30-7. |
| 14. | Griffith MJ, Seidenstein MK, Williams D, Charnley J. Eight year results of Charnley arthroplasties of the hip with special reference to the behavior of cement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1978;137:24-36. |
| 15. | Vaishya R, Chauhan M, Vaish A. Bone cement. J Clin Orthop Trauma 2013;4:157-63. |
| 16. | Chandler HP, Reineck FT, Wixson RL, McCarthy JC. Total hip replacement in patients younger than 30 years old. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1981;63A: 1426-34. |
| 17. | Ballard WT, Callaghan JJ, Sullivan PM, Johnston RC. The results of improved cementing techniques for total hip arthroplasty in patients less than fifty years old. A ten-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1994;76:959-64. |
| 18. | Barrack RL, Mulroy RD Jr., Harris WH. Improved cementing techniques and femoral component loosening in young patients with hip arthroplasty. A 12-year radiographic review. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1992;74:385-9. |
| 19. | Askew MJ, Steege JW, Lewis JL, Ranieri JR, Wixson RL. Effect of cement pressure and bone strength on polymethylmethacrylate fixation. J Orthop Res 1984;1:412-20. |
| 20. | Breusch SJ, Norman TL, Schneider U, Reitzel T, Blaha JD, Lukoschek M. Lavage technique in THA: Jet-lavage produces better cement penetration than syringe-lavage in the proximal femur. J Arthroplasty 2000;15:921-7. |
| 21. | Majkowski RS, Miles AW, Bannister GC, Perkins J, Taylor GJ. Bone surface preparation in cemented joint replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1993;75:459-63. |
| 22. | Panjabi MM, Cimino WR, Drinker H. Effect of pressure on bone cement stiffness. An in vitro study. Acta Orthop Scand 1986;57:106-10. |
| 23. | Debrunner HU, Wettstein A. Working time of bone cements. Arch Orthop Unfallchir 1975;81:291. |
| 24. | Garcia FL, Sugo AT, Picado CH. Radiographic grading of femoral stem cementation in hip arthroplasty. Acta Ortop Bras 2013;21:30-3. |
| 25. | Britton AR, Murray DW, Bulstrode CJ, McPherson K, Denham RA. Long-term comparison of Charnley and Stanmore design total hip replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1996;78:802-8. |
| 26. | Malchau H, Herberts P, Söderman P, Odén A. Prognosis of total hip replacement: Update and validation of results from the Swedish National Hip Arthroplasty Registry. In: 67th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. scientific Exhibition presented at the 67th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Orlando, USA: 2000;15-19. |
| 27. | Mulroy RD Jr., Harris WH. The effect of improved cementing techniques on component loosening in total hip replacement. An 11-year radiographic review. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1990;72:757-60. |
| 28. | Roberts DW, Poss R, Kelley K. Radiographic comparison of cementing techniques in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 1986;1:241-7. |
| 29. | Russotti GM, Coventry MB, Stauffer RN. Cemented total hip arthroplasty with contemporary techniques. Five-year follow-up study. Clin Orthop 1988;235:141-7. |
| 30. | Malchau H, Herberts P. Prognosis of total hip replacement in Sweden: Revision and re-revision rate in THR. In: Presented at the 65 th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. New Orleans, LA: Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica; 1998;64:497-506.doi: 10.3109/17453679308993679. |
| 31. | Williams HD, Browne G, Gie GA, Ling RS, Timperley AJ, Wendover NA. The Exeter universal cemented femoral component at 8 to 12 years. A study of the first 325 hips. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2002;84:324-34. |
| 32. | Rasquinha VJ, Dua V, Rodriguez JA, Ranawat CS. Fifteen-year survivorship of a collarless, cemented, normalized femoral stem in primary hybrid total hip arthroplasty with a modifified thirdgeneration cement technique. J Arthroplast 2003;18 Suppl 1:86-94. |
| 33. | Mäkelä KT, Matilainen M, Pulkkinen P, Fenstad AM, Havelin L, Engesaeter L, et al. Failure rate of cemented and uncemented total hip replacements: Register study of combined nordic database of four nations. BMJ 2014;348:f7592. |
| 34. | Morshed S, Bozic KJ, Ries MD, Malchau H, Colford JM Jr. Comparison of cemented and uncemented fixation in total hip replacement: A meta-analysis. Acta Orthop 2007;78:315-26. |
| 35. | Maggs J, Wilson M. The relative merits of cemented and uncemented prostheses in total hip arthroplasty. Indian J Orthop 2017;51:377-85. [ PUBMED] [Full text] |
| 36. | Harris WH, McCarthy JC Jr, O'Neill DA. Femoral component loosening using contemporary techniques of femoral cement fixation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1982;64:1063-7. PMID: 7118973. |
| 37. | |
| 38. | Krause WR, Krug W, Miller J. Strength of the cement-bone interface. Clin Orthop 1982;163:290-9. |
| 39. | Noble PC, Swarts E. Penetration of acrylic bone cements into cancellous bone. Acta Orthop Scand 1983;54:566-73. |
| 40. | Stone JJ, Rand JA, Chiu EK, Grabowski JJ, An KN. Cement viscosity affects the bone-cement interface in total hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Res 1996;14:834-7. |
| 41. | Lehtimäki MY, Lehto MU, Kautiainen H, Savolainen HA, Hämäläinen MM. Survivorship of the Charnley total hip arthroplasty in juvenile chronic arthritis: a follow-up of 186 cases for 22 years. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1997;79:792-5. |
| 42. | Goodman SB, Hwang K, Imrie S. High complication rate in revision total hip arthroplasty in juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014;472:637-44. |
| 43. | Wroblewski BM, Siney PD, Fleming P. Charnley low-frictional torque arthroplasty: follow-up for 30 to 40 years. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2009;91-B:447. |
| 44. | Warth LC, Callaghan JJ, Liu SS, Klaassen AL, Goetz DD, Johnston RC. Thirty-five-year results after Charnley total hip arthroplasty in patients less than fifty years old: a concise follow-up of previous reports. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2014;96:1814-9. |
| 45. | |
[Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4], [Figure 5]
[Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4]
|
Search Pubmed for