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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
British Editorial Society of Bone and Joint Surgery
2020
|
Materias: | |
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 |