Cargando…

The posterior approach reduces the risk of thin cement mantles with a straight femoral stem design

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The properties of the cement mantle around a prosthesis are important. We investigated whether the surgical approach to the hip influences the quality and thickness of the cement mantle when using a straight femoral stem design. METHODS: In a consecutive multi-surgeon series,...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Macpherson, Gavin J, Hank, Christian, Schneider, Michael, Trayner, Morag, Elton, Robert, Howie, Colin R, Breusch, Steffen J
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Informa Healthcare 2010
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2876829/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20446829
http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2010.487239
_version_ 1782181715022708736
author Macpherson, Gavin J
Hank, Christian
Schneider, Michael
Trayner, Morag
Elton, Robert
Howie, Colin R
Breusch, Steffen J
author_facet Macpherson, Gavin J
Hank, Christian
Schneider, Michael
Trayner, Morag
Elton, Robert
Howie, Colin R
Breusch, Steffen J
author_sort Macpherson, Gavin J
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The properties of the cement mantle around a prosthesis are important. We investigated whether the surgical approach to the hip influences the quality and thickness of the cement mantle when using a straight femoral stem design. METHODS: In a consecutive multi-surgeon series, we reviewed the radiographs of 270 patients after cemented Exeter total hip arthroplasty. 135 stems were introduced using an antero-lateral (transgluteal) approach and 135 stems were introduced using a posterior approach. Anterior-posterior and lateral radiographs were reviewed and cement mantle thickness was measured in Gruen zones 1–14. We graded cement mantle quality according to the Barrack classification. RESULTS: Barrack grading did not reveal any difference in cement mantle quality between the two groups. AP and lateral radiographs showed no difference in stem alignment between the groups. The risk of a thin cement mantle (< 2 mm) was lower with a posterior approach (OR = 1.8, 95% CI: 1–3; p = 0.03). The greatest risk of a cement mantle thickness of < 2 mm occurred in Gruen zones 8–9 regardless of the surgical approach used. INTERPRETATION: With a straight femoral stem design, the posterior approach to the hip joint appears to give a lower risk of a thin cement mantle. Irrespective of the approach, there was a risk of thin cement mantles in Gruen zones 8 and 9, which highlights the importance of lateral radiographs in the postoperative radiographic assessment of total hip replacements.
format Text
id pubmed-2876829
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2010
publisher Informa Healthcare
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-28768292010-09-03 The posterior approach reduces the risk of thin cement mantles with a straight femoral stem design Macpherson, Gavin J Hank, Christian Schneider, Michael Trayner, Morag Elton, Robert Howie, Colin R Breusch, Steffen J Acta Orthop Research Article BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The properties of the cement mantle around a prosthesis are important. We investigated whether the surgical approach to the hip influences the quality and thickness of the cement mantle when using a straight femoral stem design. METHODS: In a consecutive multi-surgeon series, we reviewed the radiographs of 270 patients after cemented Exeter total hip arthroplasty. 135 stems were introduced using an antero-lateral (transgluteal) approach and 135 stems were introduced using a posterior approach. Anterior-posterior and lateral radiographs were reviewed and cement mantle thickness was measured in Gruen zones 1–14. We graded cement mantle quality according to the Barrack classification. RESULTS: Barrack grading did not reveal any difference in cement mantle quality between the two groups. AP and lateral radiographs showed no difference in stem alignment between the groups. The risk of a thin cement mantle (< 2 mm) was lower with a posterior approach (OR = 1.8, 95% CI: 1–3; p = 0.03). The greatest risk of a cement mantle thickness of < 2 mm occurred in Gruen zones 8–9 regardless of the surgical approach used. INTERPRETATION: With a straight femoral stem design, the posterior approach to the hip joint appears to give a lower risk of a thin cement mantle. Irrespective of the approach, there was a risk of thin cement mantles in Gruen zones 8 and 9, which highlights the importance of lateral radiographs in the postoperative radiographic assessment of total hip replacements. Informa Healthcare 2010-06 2010-05-21 /pmc/articles/PMC2876829/ /pubmed/20446829 http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2010.487239 Text en Copyright: © Nordic Orthopedic Federation http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the source is credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Macpherson, Gavin J
Hank, Christian
Schneider, Michael
Trayner, Morag
Elton, Robert
Howie, Colin R
Breusch, Steffen J
The posterior approach reduces the risk of thin cement mantles with a straight femoral stem design
title The posterior approach reduces the risk of thin cement mantles with a straight femoral stem design
title_full The posterior approach reduces the risk of thin cement mantles with a straight femoral stem design
title_fullStr The posterior approach reduces the risk of thin cement mantles with a straight femoral stem design
title_full_unstemmed The posterior approach reduces the risk of thin cement mantles with a straight femoral stem design
title_short The posterior approach reduces the risk of thin cement mantles with a straight femoral stem design
title_sort posterior approach reduces the risk of thin cement mantles with a straight femoral stem design
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2876829/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20446829
http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2010.487239
work_keys_str_mv AT macphersongavinj theposteriorapproachreducestheriskofthincementmantleswithastraightfemoralstemdesign
AT hankchristian theposteriorapproachreducestheriskofthincementmantleswithastraightfemoralstemdesign
AT schneidermichael theposteriorapproachreducestheriskofthincementmantleswithastraightfemoralstemdesign
AT traynermorag theposteriorapproachreducestheriskofthincementmantleswithastraightfemoralstemdesign
AT eltonrobert theposteriorapproachreducestheriskofthincementmantleswithastraightfemoralstemdesign
AT howiecolinr theposteriorapproachreducestheriskofthincementmantleswithastraightfemoralstemdesign
AT breuschsteffenj theposteriorapproachreducestheriskofthincementmantleswithastraightfemoralstemdesign
AT macphersongavinj posteriorapproachreducestheriskofthincementmantleswithastraightfemoralstemdesign
AT hankchristian posteriorapproachreducestheriskofthincementmantleswithastraightfemoralstemdesign
AT schneidermichael posteriorapproachreducestheriskofthincementmantleswithastraightfemoralstemdesign
AT traynermorag posteriorapproachreducestheriskofthincementmantleswithastraightfemoralstemdesign
AT eltonrobert posteriorapproachreducestheriskofthincementmantleswithastraightfemoralstemdesign
AT howiecolinr posteriorapproachreducestheriskofthincementmantleswithastraightfemoralstemdesign
AT breuschsteffenj posteriorapproachreducestheriskofthincementmantleswithastraightfemoralstemdesign