Top

European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology

Published in:

01-01-2021 | Hip-TEP | General Review

The cement-in-cement technique is a reliable option in hip arthroplasty revision surgery: a systematic review

Authors: Francisco Xará-Leite, Ana Daniela Pereira, Renato Andrade, André Sarmento, Ricardo Sousa, Olufemi R. Ayeni, João Espregueira-Mendes, Daniel Soares

Published in: European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology | Issue 1/2021

Abstract

Introduction

The cement-in-cement technique for revision hip arthroplasty has many potential advantages and has recently gained widespread interest but still lacks evidence to support it. Our aim was to examine the surgical and patient-reported outcomes after cement-in-cement revision hip arthroplasty.

Materials and methods

A systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched up to February 2019 for original studies reporting the outcomes of revision hip arthroplasty surgeries using the cement-in-cement technique. The methodological quality was assessed using the methodological index for non-randomized studies scale.

Results

Sixteen non-comparative studies met the eligibility criteria, comprising 1899 hips in 1856 patients (72.2 mean age, 37% male), with a mean follow-up of 7.2 years. Most studies reported only primary revisions and focused on the stem component. Intraoperative complications such as femoral or acetabular fractures (5.3%) were low and easily manageable with no relevant sequelae, as were dislocation rates (2.8% of uncomplicated events and 1.6% of cases requiring re-revision). Failure (considered if there was aseptic loosening of the cement-in-cement revised component, 2%), re-revision (9.3%), implant survival and late complication rates were favourable. Functional patient-reported outcomes showed an overall improvement above the minimal clinically important difference at final follow-up.

Conclusion

The cement-in-cement technique is a viable option for hip arthroplasty revision surgery with low intraoperative and late complication rates, dislocations and immediate post-operative morbidity, resulting in good functional patient-reported outcomes and favourable medium-term implant survival.

Available only for authorised users

Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M (2007) Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Jt Surg Am 89:780–785

Schwartz BE, Piponov HI, Helder CW, Mayers WF, Gonzalez MH (2016) Revision total hip arthroplasty in the United States: national trends and in-hospital outcomes. Int Orthop 40:1793–1802PubMed

Katz JN, Losina E, Barrett J et al (2001) Association between hospital and surgeon procedure volume and outcomes of total hip replacement in the United States medicare population. J Bone Jt Surg Am 83:1622–1629

Sarpong NO, Grosso MJ, Lakra A, Held MB, Herndon CL, Cooper HJ (2019) Hemiarthroplasty Conversion: a Comparison to Primary and Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 34:1168–1173PubMed

Katz JN, Phillips CB, Baron JA et al (2003) Association of hospital and surgeon volume of total hip replacement with functional status and satisfaction three years following surgery. Arthritis Rheum 48:560–568PubMed

Greenwald AS, Narten NC, Wilde AH (1978) Points in the technique of recementing in the revision of an implant arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 60:107–110PubMed

Keeling P, Prendergast PJ, Lennon AB, Kenny PJ (2008) Cement-in-cement revision hip arthroplasty: an analysis of clinical and biomechanical literature. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 128:1193–1199PubMed

Keeling P, Lennon AB, Kenny PJ, O’Reilly P, Prendergast PJ (2012) The mechanical effect of the existing cement mantle on the in-cement femoral revision. Clin Biomech 27:673–679

Sandiford NA, Jameson SS, Wilson MJ, Hubble MJ, Timperley AJ, Howell JR (2017) Cement-in-cement femoral component revision in the multiply revised total hip arthroplasty: results with a minimum follow-up of five years. Bone Jt J 99-b:199–203

10.

Amanatullah DF, Pallante GD, Floccari LV, Vasileiadis GI, Trousdale RT (2017) Revision total hip arthroplasty using the cement-in-cement technique. Orthopedics 40:e348–e351PubMed

11.

Cnudde PH, Karrholm J, Rolfson O, Timperley AJ, Mohaddes M (2017) Cement-in-cement revision of the femoral stem: analysis of 1179 first-time revisions in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Bone Jt J 99-b:27–32

12.

Cook SM, Huo MH (2002) Revision of the femoral stem using cement fixation. Curr Opin Orthop 13:53–55

13.

Nelson CL (2002) Cemented femoral revision: technique and outcome. Am J Orthop 31:187–189PubMed

14.

Holt G, Hook S, Hubble M (2011) Revision total hip arthroplasty: the femoral side using cemented implants. Int Orthop 35:267–273PubMed

15.

Li PL, Ingle PJ, Dowell JK (1996) Cement-within-cement revision hip arthroplasty; Should it be done? J Bone Jt Surg Br 78:809–811

16.

Liddle A, Webb M, Clement N, Green S, Liddle J, German M, Holland J (2019) Ultrasonic cement removal in cement-in-cement revision total hip arthroplasty: What is the effect on the final cement-in-cement bond? Bone Jt Res 8:246–252

17.

Slim K, Nini E, Forestier D, Kwiatkowski F, Panis Y, Chipponi J (2003) Methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg 73:712–716PubMed

18.

Duncan WW, Hubble MJ, Howell JR, Whitehouse SL, Timperley AJ, Gie GA (2009) Revision of the cemented femoral stem using a cement-in-cement technique: a five- to 15-year review. J Bone Jt Surg Br 91:577–582

19.

Lampropoulou-Adamidou KI, Tsiridis EE, Kenanidis EI, Hartofilakidis GC (2016) The outcome of 69 recemented hip femoral prostheses performed by one surgeon 22–40 years ago. J Arthroplasty 31:2252–2255PubMed

20.

Young J, Vallamshetla VR, Lawrence T (2008) The polished tri-tapered stem for cement-in-cement revision hip arthroplasty, a reliable and reproducible technique? Hip Int 18:272–277PubMed

21.

te Stroet MA, Moret-Wever SG, de Kam DC, Gardeniers JW, Schreurs BW (2014) Cement-in-cement femoral revisions using a specially designed polished short revision stem; 24 consecutive stems followed for five to seven years. Hip Int 24:428–433

22.

Brogan K, Charity J, Sheeraz A, Whitehouse SL, Timperley AJ, Howell JR, Hubble MJ (2012) Revision total hip replacement using the cement-in-cement technique for the acetabular component: technique and results for 60 hips. J Bone Jt Surg Br 94:1482–1486

23.

Quinlan JF, O’Shea K, Doyle F, Brady OH (2006) In-cement technique for revision hip arthroplasty. J Bone Jt Surg Br 88:730–733

24.

Okuzu Y, Goto K, So K, Kuroda Y, Matsuda S (2016) Mid- and long-term results of femoral component revision using the cement-in-cement technique: average 10.8-year follow-up study. J Orthop Sci 21:810–814PubMed

25.

Stefanovich-Lawbuary NS, Parry MC, Whitehouse MR, Blom AW (2014) Cement in cement revision of the femoral component using a collarless triple taper: a midterm clinical and radiographic assessment. J Arthroplasty 29:2002–2006PubMed

26.

Mounsey EJ, Williams DH, Howell JR, Hubble MJ (2015) Revision of hemiarthroplasty to total hip arthroplasty using the cement-in-cement technique. Bone Jt J 97-b:1623–1627

27.

Lieberman JR, Moeckel BH, Evans BG, Salvati EA, Ranawat CS (1993) Cement-within-cement revision hip arthroplasty. J Bone Jt Surg Br 75:869–871

28.

Mandziak DG, Howie DW, Neale SD, McGee MA (2007) Cement-within-cement stem exchange using the collarless polished double-taper stem. J Arthroplasty 22:1000–1006PubMed

29.

Marcos L, Buttaro M, Comba F, Piccaluga F (2009) Femoral cement within cement technique in carefully selected aseptic revision arthroplasties. Int Orthop 33:633–637PubMed

30.

McDougall CJ, Yu J, Calligeros K, Crawford R, Howie CR (2016) A valuable technique for femoral stem revision in total hip replacement: the in-cement revision—a case series and technical note. J Orthop 13:294–297PubMedPubMedCentral

31.

Sadoghi P, Liebensteiner M, Agreiter M, Leithner A, Bohler N, Labek G (2013) Revision surgery after total joint arthroplasty: a complication-based analysis using worldwide arthroplasty registers. J Arthroplasty 28:1329–1332PubMed

32.

Berry DJ (1999) Epidemiology: hip and knee. Orthop Clin N Am 30:183–190

33.

Katz JN, Wright J, Wright EA, Losina E (2007) Failures of total hip replacement: a population-based perspective. Orthop J Harvard Med Sch 9:101–106

34.

National Joint Registry (NJR) for England W, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man (2018) 15th annual report

35.

AOANJRR (2018) Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry—Hip, Knee & Shoulder Arthroplasty Annual Report

36.

Lie SA, Havelin LI, Furnes ON, Engesaeter LB, Vollset SE (2004) Failure rates for 4762 revision total hip arthroplasties in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. J Bone Jt Surg Br 86:504–509

37.

Chaudhry ZS, Salem HS, Hammoud S, Salvo JP (2019) Does prior hip arthroscopy affect outcomes of subsequent hip arthroplasty? A systematic review. Arthroscopy 35:631–643PubMed

38.

Pituckanotai K, Arirachakaran A, Tuchinda H, Putananon C, Nualsalee N, Setrkraising K, Kongtharvonskul J (2018) Risk of revision and dislocation in single, dual mobility and large femoral head total hip arthroplasty: systematic review and network meta-analysis. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 28:445–455PubMed

39.

Reina N, Pareek A, Krych AJ, Pagnano MW, Berry DJ, Abdel MP (2019) Dual-mobility constructs in primary and revision total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review of comparative studies. J Arthroplasty 34:594–603PubMed

40.

Matharu GS, Berryman F, Dunlop DJ, Revell MP, Judge A, Murray DW, Pandit HG (2019) No threshold exists for recommending revision surgery in metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty patients with adverse reactions to metal debris: a retrospective cohort study of 346 revisions. J Arthroplasty 34:1483–1491PubMedPubMedCentral

41.

Senthi S, Munro JT, Pitto RP (2011) Infection in total hip replacement: meta-analysis. Int Orthop 35:253–260PubMed

42.

Davidson D, Pike J, Garbuz D, Duncan CP, Masri BA (2008) Intraoperative periprosthetic fractures during total hip arthroplasty. Evaluation and management. J Bone Jt Surg Am 90:2000–2012

43.

Blom AW, Rogers M, Taylor AH, Pattison G, Whitehouse S, Bannister GC (2008) Dislocation following total hip replacement: the Avon Orthopaedic Centre experience. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 90:658–662PubMedPubMedCentral

44.

Wetters NG, Murray TG, Moric M, Sporer SM, Paprosky WG, Della Valle CJ (2013) Risk factors for dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471:410–416PubMed

45.

Poon ED, Lachiewicz PF (1998) Results of isolated acetabular revisions: the fate of the unrevised femoral component. J Arthroplasty 13:42–49PubMed

46.

Hanssen AD, Osmon DR, Nelson CL (1997) Prevention of deep periprosthetic joint infection. Instr Course Lect 46:555–567PubMed

47.

Resende VAC, Neto AC, Nunes C, Andrade R, Espregueira-Mendes J, Lopes S (2018) Higher age, female gender, osteoarthritis and blood transfusion protect against periprosthetic joint infection in total hip or knee arthroplasties: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-018-5231-9CrossRefPubMed

48.

Martin-Fernandez J, Gray-Laymon P, Molina-Siguero A et al (2017) Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Spanish version of the Oxford Hip Score in patients with hip osteoarthritis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 18:205PubMedPubMedCentral

49.

Singh JA, Schleck C, Harmsen S, Lewallen D (2016) Clinically important improvement thresholds for Harris Hip Score and its ability to predict revision risk after primary total hip arthroplasty. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 17:256PubMedPubMedCentral

50.

Ritter MA, Fechtman RW, Keating EM, Faris PM (1990) The use of a hip score for evaluation of the results of total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 5:187–189PubMed

Title: The cement-in-cement technique is a reliable option in hip arthroplasty revision surgery: a systematic review
Authors: Francisco Xará-Leite
Ana Daniela Pereira
Renato Andrade
André Sarmento
Ricardo Sousa
Olufemi R. Ayeni
João Espregueira-Mendes
Daniel Soares
Publication date: 01-01-2021
Publisher: Springer Paris
Keywords: Hip-TEP
Hip-TEP
Published in: European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology / Issue 1/2021
Print ISSN: 1633-8065
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1068
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-020-02736-w

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

The cement-in-cement technique is a reliable option in hip arthroplasty revision surgery: a systematic review

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

Focal inlay resurfacing for full-thickness chondral defects of the femoral medial condyle may delay the progression to varus deformity

Hybrid stems are superior to cemented stems in revision total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of recent comparative studies

Enhanced nerve autograft using stromal vascular fraction

Injury and treatment patterns of ballistic pelvic fractures by anatomic location

Diagnostic performance of suction drainage fluid culture for acute surgical site infection after aseptic instrumented spine surgery: a retrospective analysis of 363 cases

Feasibility of pre- and postoperative arthroscopic assessments with internal fixation for growth plate injury of the distal tibia: three case reports and a literature review