Revision of a failed cemented total hip prosthesis with insertion of an acetabular component without cement and a femoral component with cement: A five to eight-year follow-up study

Kristy L. Weber, John J. Callaghan, Devon D. Goetz, Richard C. Johnsion

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Sixty-one consecutive so-called hybrid revision total hip arthroplasties were performed in fifty-five patients by one surgeon, from 1986 through 1988, for mechanical failure of a cemented rural hip prosthesis. In all of the patients, the acetabular and femoral components were revised to a porous- coated Harris-Galante acetabular component inserted without cement and an Iowa femoral component inserted with cement. Contemporary cementing techniques were used, but structural bone graft was not. The over-all prevalence of repeat revision for aseptic loosening was 0 per cent for the acetabular components and 3 per cent (two hips) for the femoral components. In addition, 2 per cent (one) of the acetabular components and 5 per cent (three) (if the femoral components demonstrated radiographic evidence of loosening. In the forty-three patients (forty-nine hips) who were alive at an average of seventy-four months (range, sixty to ninety-five months) after the revision, none of the acetabular components and 2 per cent (one) of the femoral components were revised again for aseptic loosening. An additional 2 per cent (one) of the acetabular components and 6 per cent (three) of the femoral components were radiographically loose. Ninety-eight per cent (forty- one) of the forty-two living patients (98 per cent [forty-seven] of the forty-eight hips) who had a clinical examination at least five years after the revision had increased function: 90 per cent (thirty-eight) of these patients (forty-four [92 per cent] of the hips) were satisfied with the result. The group that had a hybrid revision was compared with a group of seventy patients (seventy-four hips) who had had a revision total hip arthroplasty with use of contemporary cementing techniques for both components. These revisions had been performed by the same surgeon, before he performed the hybrid revisions, and the prevalence of repeat revision of the acetabular component was 7 per cent (five hips) and that of the femoral component was 4 per cent (three hips). In addition, 16 per cent (twelve) of the acetabular components and 3 per cent (two) of the femoral components were radiographically loose. The comparison group was not a consecutive series, as only the patients who had had radiographs made five tn eight years after the revision were evaluated. In the fifty-two such patients (fifty-six hips) who were alive at five years after the revision with cement (average duration of radiographic follow-up, seventy-seven months; range, sixty to ninety-nine months), 9 per cent (five) of the acetabular components and 5 per cent (three) of the femoral components were revised again for aseptic loosening. An additional 21 per cent (twelve) of the acebular components and 4 per cent (two) of the femoral components were radiographically loose. The results of the present study demonstrated a significant improvement (p = (0.0001) in the survival of the acetabular component of so-called hybrid revision total hip arthroplasties compared with that of revision total hip arthroplasties with cement performed by the same surgeon and followed for a comparable period.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)982-994
Number of pages13
JournalJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery - Series A
Volume78
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1996

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Revision of a failed cemented total hip prosthesis with insertion of an acetabular component without cement and a femoral component with cement: A five to eight-year follow-up study'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this