Cargando…

Current concepts and outcomes in cemented femoral stem design and cementation techniques: the argument for a new classification system

Cemented implant fixation design principles have evolved since the 1950s, and various femoral stem designs are currently in use to provide a stable construct between the implant–cement and cement–bone interfaces. Cemented stems have classically been classified into two broad categories: taper slip o...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cassar-Gheiti, Adrian J., McColgan, Rosie, Kelly, Martin, Cassar-Gheiti, Theresa M., Kenny, Paddy, Murphy, Colin G.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: British Editorial Society of Bone and Joint Surgery 2020
Materias:
Hip
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7202038/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32377392
http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/2058-5241.5.190034
_version_ 1783529660989046784
author Cassar-Gheiti, Adrian J.
McColgan, Rosie
Kelly, Martin
Cassar-Gheiti, Theresa M.
Kenny, Paddy
Murphy, Colin G.
author_facet Cassar-Gheiti, Adrian J.
McColgan, Rosie
Kelly, Martin
Cassar-Gheiti, Theresa M.
Kenny, Paddy
Murphy, Colin G.
author_sort Cassar-Gheiti, Adrian J.
collection PubMed
description Cemented implant fixation design principles have evolved since the 1950s, and various femoral stem designs are currently in use to provide a stable construct between the implant–cement and cement–bone interfaces. Cemented stems have classically been classified into two broad categories: taper slip or force closed, and composite beams or shaped closed designs. While these simplifications are acceptable general categories, there are other important surgical details that need to be taken into consideration such as different broaching techniques, cementing techniques and mantle thickness. With the evolution of cemented implants, the introduction of newer implants which have hybrid properties, and the use of different broaching techniques, the classification of a very heterogenous group of implants into simple binary categories becomes increasingly difficult. A more comprehensive classification system would aid in comparison of results and better understanding of the implants’ biomechanics. We review these differing stem designs, their respective cementing techniques and geometries. We then propose a simple four-part classification system and summarize the long-term outcomes and international registry data for each respective type of cemented prosthesis. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2020;5:241-252. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.190034
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7202038
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher British Editorial Society of Bone and Joint Surgery
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-72020382020-05-06 Current concepts and outcomes in cemented femoral stem design and cementation techniques: the argument for a new classification system Cassar-Gheiti, Adrian J. McColgan, Rosie Kelly, Martin Cassar-Gheiti, Theresa M. Kenny, Paddy Murphy, Colin G. EFORT Open Rev Hip Cemented implant fixation design principles have evolved since the 1950s, and various femoral stem designs are currently in use to provide a stable construct between the implant–cement and cement–bone interfaces. Cemented stems have classically been classified into two broad categories: taper slip or force closed, and composite beams or shaped closed designs. While these simplifications are acceptable general categories, there are other important surgical details that need to be taken into consideration such as different broaching techniques, cementing techniques and mantle thickness. With the evolution of cemented implants, the introduction of newer implants which have hybrid properties, and the use of different broaching techniques, the classification of a very heterogenous group of implants into simple binary categories becomes increasingly difficult. A more comprehensive classification system would aid in comparison of results and better understanding of the implants’ biomechanics. We review these differing stem designs, their respective cementing techniques and geometries. We then propose a simple four-part classification system and summarize the long-term outcomes and international registry data for each respective type of cemented prosthesis. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2020;5:241-252. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.190034 British Editorial Society of Bone and Joint Surgery 2020-04-02 /pmc/articles/PMC7202038/ /pubmed/32377392 http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/2058-5241.5.190034 Text en © 2020 The author(s) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed.
spellingShingle Hip
Cassar-Gheiti, Adrian J.
McColgan, Rosie
Kelly, Martin
Cassar-Gheiti, Theresa M.
Kenny, Paddy
Murphy, Colin G.
Current concepts and outcomes in cemented femoral stem design and cementation techniques: the argument for a new classification system
title Current concepts and outcomes in cemented femoral stem design and cementation techniques: the argument for a new classification system
title_full Current concepts and outcomes in cemented femoral stem design and cementation techniques: the argument for a new classification system
title_fullStr Current concepts and outcomes in cemented femoral stem design and cementation techniques: the argument for a new classification system
title_full_unstemmed Current concepts and outcomes in cemented femoral stem design and cementation techniques: the argument for a new classification system
title_short Current concepts and outcomes in cemented femoral stem design and cementation techniques: the argument for a new classification system
title_sort current concepts and outcomes in cemented femoral stem design and cementation techniques: the argument for a new classification system
topic Hip
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7202038/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32377392
http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/2058-5241.5.190034
work_keys_str_mv AT cassargheitiadrianj currentconceptsandoutcomesincementedfemoralstemdesignandcementationtechniquestheargumentforanewclassificationsystem
AT mccolganrosie currentconceptsandoutcomesincementedfemoralstemdesignandcementationtechniquestheargumentforanewclassificationsystem
AT kellymartin currentconceptsandoutcomesincementedfemoralstemdesignandcementationtechniquestheargumentforanewclassificationsystem
AT cassargheititheresam currentconceptsandoutcomesincementedfemoralstemdesignandcementationtechniquestheargumentforanewclassificationsystem
AT kennypaddy currentconceptsandoutcomesincementedfemoralstemdesignandcementationtechniquestheargumentforanewclassificationsystem
AT murphycoling currentconceptsandoutcomesincementedfemoralstemdesignandcementationtechniquestheargumentforanewclassificationsystem