CT analysis of defects of the cement mantle and alignment of the stem: in vitro comparison of Charnley-Kerboul femoral hip implants inserted line-to-line and undersized in paired femora.

Using a modern cementing technique, we implanted 22 stereolithographic polymeric replicas of the Charnley-Kerboul stem in 11 pairs of human cadaver femora. On one side, the replicas were cemented line-to-line with the largest broach. On the other, one-size undersized replicas were used (radial difference, 0.89 mm sd 0.13).CT analysis showed that the line-to-line stems without distal centralisers were at least as well aligned and centered as undersized stems with a centraliser, but were surrounded by less cement and presented more areas of thin (< 2 mm) or deficient (< 1 mm) cement. These areas were located predominantly at the corners and in the middle and distal thirds of the stem. Nevertheless, in line-to-line stems, penetration of cement into cancellous bone resulted in a mean thickness of cement of 3.1 mm (sd 0.6) and only 6.2% of deficient and 26.4% of thin cement. In over 90% of these areas, the cement was directly supported by cortical bone or cortical bone with less than 1 mm of cancellous bone interposed. When Charnley-Kerboul stems are cemented line-to-line, good clinical results are observed because cement-deficient areas are limited and are frequently supported by cortical bone.

[1]  K. Terayama,et al.  Predisposing factors in fixation failure of femoral prostheses following primary Charnley low friction arthroplasty. A 10- to 20-year followup study. , 1994, Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research.

[2]  K. Markolf,et al.  In vitro measurement of bone-acrylic interface pressure during femoral component insertion. , 1976, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[3]  A Sarmiento,et al.  The cement mantle in total hip arthroplasty. Analysis of long-term radiographic results. , 1994, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[4]  L. Kerboull,et al.  Long-Term Results of Charnley-Kerboull Hip Arthroplasty in Patients Younger Than 50 Years , 2004, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[5]  Robert B. Bourne,et al.  Three-Dimensional Analysis of the Cement Mantle in Total Hip Arthroplasty , 2001 .

[6]  C. Ranawat,et al.  Fifteen-year survivorship of a collarless, cemented, normalized femoral stem in primary hybrid total hip arthroplasty with a modified third-generation cement technique. , 2003, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[7]  W H Harris,et al.  Localized osteolysis in stable, non-septic total hip replacement. , 1986, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[8]  Julius T. Tou,et al.  Pattern Recognition Principles , 1974 .

[9]  Tomoyuki Saito,et al.  Mechanisms of failure of total hip replacements: lessons learned from retrieval studies. , 2004, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[10]  H. Tullos,et al.  Proximal and Distal Femoral Centralizers in Modern Cemented Hip Arthroplasty , 1998, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[11]  A. McCaskie,et al.  Cement pressurisation during hip replacement. , 1997, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[12]  L. Ripley,et al.  The femoral cement mantle in three total hip replacements , 2004, International Orthopaedics.

[13]  P F Leyvraz,et al.  The fixation of the cemented femoral component. Effects of stem stiffness, cement thickness and roughness of the cement-bone surface. , 2000, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[14]  Amos Race,et al.  Cement microcracks in thin-mantle regions after in vitro fatigue loading. , 2004, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[15]  D. McMahon,et al.  Osteolysis after Charnley primary low-friction arthroplasty. A comparison of two matched paired groups. , 1998, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[16]  U. Schneider,et al.  Lavage technique in total hip arthroplasty: jet lavage produces better cement penetration than syringe lavage in the proximal femur. , 2000, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[17]  M. Panjabi,et al.  Effect of pressurization on methylmethacrylate-bone interdigitation: an in vitro study of canine femora. , 1983, Journal of biomechanics.

[18]  U. Schneider,et al.  Cement penetration in the proximal femur does not depend on broach surface finish , 2001, Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica.

[19]  P. B. Hanson,et al.  Total hip arthroplasty cemented femoral component distal stem centralizer. Effect on stem centralization and cement mantle. , 1995, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[20]  C. Howie,et al.  Localised endosteal bone lysis in relation to the femoral components of cemented total hip arthroplasties. , 1990, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[21]  L. Lidgren,et al.  Interface gap after implantation of a cemented femoral stem in pigs. , 1999, Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica.

[22]  W. Maloney,et al.  Bone lysis in well-fixed cemented femoral components. , 1990, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[23]  L. Sedel,et al.  The 'French paradox.'. , 2003, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[24]  D. Ayers,et al.  The importance of proximal cement filling of the calcar region: a biomechanical justification. , 2003, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[25]  P. D. de Groen An Introduction to Total Least Squares , 1996 .

[26]  R. Barrack Early failure of modern cemented stems. , 2000, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[27]  B. Wroblewski The natural history of debonding of the femoral component from the cement and its effect on long-term survival of Charnley total hip replacements. , 1999, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[28]  W. Maloney,et al.  Importance of a Thin Cement Mantle: Autopsy Studies of Eight Hips , 1998, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[29]  S. Tamai,et al.  Thin cement mantle and osteolysis with a precoated stem. , 1999, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[30]  H. Tullos,et al.  Factors influencing pressurization of the femoral canal during cemented total hip arthroplasty. , 1995, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[31]  A. McCaskie,et al.  A comparison of 2 modern femoral cementing techniques: analysis by cement-bone interface pressure measurements, computerized image analysis, and static mechanical testing. , 2000, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[32]  W. Harris,et al.  Femoral cement pressurization during total hip arthroplasty. The role of different femoral stems with reference to stem size and shape. , 1984, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[33]  Amos Race,et al.  Early cement damage around a femoral stem is concentrated at the cement/bone interface. , 2003, Journal of biomechanics.

[34]  V. Pinskerova,et al.  Should the cement mantle around the femoral component be thick or thin? , 2003, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[35]  Philip C. Noble,et al.  Pressurization and Centralization Enhance the Quality and Reproducibility of Cement Mantles , 1998, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[36]  R. Deklerck,et al.  In vitro analysis of the cement mantle of femoral hip implants: Development and validation of a CT‐scan based measurement tool , 2005, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.