You are on page 1of 9

Femoral impaction grafting with cement in

revision total hip replacement


EVOLUTION OF THE TECHNIQUE AND RESULTS
B. R. Halliday, H. W. English, A. J. Timperley, G. A. Gie, R. S. M. Ling
From the Princess Elizabeth Orthopaedic Centre, Exeter, UK

e report the results of cancellous femoral Introduction


W impaction grafting with cement in revision hip
arthroplasty in all patients from one centre who had Femoral impaction grafting with cement was first reported
undergone surgery more than five years previously. A by Simon et al3 as a way of dealing with loss of bone stock
total of 32 surgeons undertook femoral impaction at revision surgery. The advantage of this method of femoral
grafting in 207 patients (226 hips). There were no deaths reconstruction over others is that it potentially allows for the
attributable to the revision surgery; 33 patients with 35 recovery of bone stock in deficient femora since the com-
functioning hips died with less than five years follow-up. pacted allograft chips may be incorporated and subse-
One patient was lost to follow-up. Two hips (1%) quently remodelled in the host skeleton. Since the original
developed early postoperative infection. Of the 12 stems report, a number of authors have published favourable
which underwent a further surgical procedure for results,4-15 though others have recorded significant prob-
aseptic failure, ten were for femoral fracture and two for lems.16-20
loosening. The technique used in Exeter has evolved since that
Survivorship with any further femoral operation as reported in the original series.3,21 Dedicated instruments
the endpoint was 90.5% (confidence intervals, 82 to 98) were developed to aid packing of the graft and alignment of
and using femoral reoperation for symptomatic aseptic the stem as the overwhelming importance of creating a
loosening as the endpoint, the survivorship was 99.1% stable implant at operation became increasingly clear.22,23
(confidence intervals, 96 to 100) at 10 to 11 years. As a We now report our experience during the evolution of the
consequence of the experience in this series, we have technique in a multi-surgeon series of the first 226 hips
modified our technique with an increased use of longer which underwent impaction grafting with a minimum
stems with impacted allograft. Long stems are indicated follow-up of five years. The Universal Exeter stem (Stryker
when the host bone around the tip of a short stem is Howmedica Osteonics) was used in all cases. As a result of
compromised, in patients with major loss of bone stock, this experience the indications for and limitations of the
or when a femoral fracture occurs. technique have become clearer.
J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 2003;85-B:809-17.
Received 27 August 2002; Accepted after revision 17 February 2003 Patients and Methods
We identified 207 patients (226 hips) who underwent femo-
ral impaction grafting during revision hip replacement
between April 1987, when the first cemented femoral
impaction grafting was undertaken, and September 1994. A
total of 32 surgeons were involved. Twelve hips were lost
B. R. Halliday, MB, BS, FRACS, Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon through death of the patient with less than two years
H. W. English, MB, BS, FRCS, FRACS, Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon
Holy Spirit North Side Hospital, Rede Road, Chernside, Brisbane, Queens- follow-up, the cause of death being unrelated to the revision
land, Australia. surgery. Five hips which became infected were excluded.
A. J. Timperley, MB, BS, FRCS Ed, Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon These patients are not further analysed other than in the sur-
G. A. Gie, MB, BS, FRCS, FRCS Ed (Orth), Consultant Orthopaedic Sur-
geon vivorship analysis. One patient was lost to follow-up. Of the
R. S. M. Ling, OBE, MA, BM, Hon FRCS Ed, FRCS, Honorary Consultant whole group, 61 patients died during the review period.
Orthopaedic Surgeon
Princess Elizabeth Orthopaedic Centre, Barrack Road, Exeter, Devon EX2 In 215 hips the impaction grafting was carried out for
5DW, UK. aseptic loosening; 11 had a two-stage revision for infection,
Correspondence should be sent to Mr A. J. Timperley at 2 The Quadrant, and none of these had recurrence of infection. The number
Wonford Road, Exeter, Devon EX2 4LE, UK. of previous revisions is shown in Table I. The preoperative
2003 British Editorial Society of Bone and Joint Surgery bone loss was graded according to the Endo-Klinik classifi-
doi:10.1302/0301-620X.85B6.13806 $2.00
cation in 193 hips (Table II). There were 62 patients with
VOL. 85-B, No. 6, AUGUST 2003 809
810 B. R. HALLIDAY, H. W. ENGLISH, A. J. TIMPERLEY, G. A. GIE, R. S. M. LING

Table I. Number of revisions stem were introduced. This series contains the first patients
at the initial procedure of
femoral impaction grafting in whom these were used as well as all the patients who had
during revision hip replacement impaction grafting without dedicated instrumentation (the
Number uninstrumented group). The latter comprised the initial
Revision of hips group of 68, operated on between mid-1987 and April 1989,
1st 161 whose preliminary results were published in 199321 and a
2nd 38 further group of 35 patients (previously unreported) who
3rd 7 underwent surgery between April 1989 and April 1994. In
4th 7
>4 2 all of these patients, we undertook distal impaction using
Staged for infection 11 plug sizers and proximal impaction with oversized trial fem-
oral components. From 1992 onwards, the Mark I X-Change
(Howmedica) instruments became available and eventually
Table II. The Endo-Klinik all impaction grafting operations were carried out using this
grades for 193 hips which
underwent femoral impaction
equipment.22,23 We carried out 123 operations in this series
grafting during revision hip with these instruments.
replacement In the uninstrumented group, femoral impaction grafting
Number was performed as described by Gie et al21 in 1993. Where
Endo-Klinik grade of hips needed, the femur was reconstructed with metalwork using
1 12 fine meshes and wires (Fig. 1). Proximal impaction of the
2 106 graft is crucial with this technique and, when necessary, we
3 62
4 6
extended the reconstruction to a position just proximal to
Not scored 7 the level of the lesser trochanter so that bone could be ade-
Total 193 quately compacted in the reformed femoral tube up to this
level. We prepared unwashed allograft chips, 2 to 4 mm in
size from fresh frozen femoral heads. In most cases, the
grade-3 and six with grade-4 loss. Long-stemmed compo- chips were produced in a bone mill and though they were
nents were not available at the time of surgery for patients in mainly cancellous, some also contained fragments of corti-
this series and, after the results of the early experience of cal bone.
impaction grafting, were not thought to be necessary. The Mark I X-Change instruments24 were used in the
In 1992, specialised instruments22,23 designed to instrumented group. At the end of the procedure, the goal
improve the performance of the operation with the Exeter was to have packed the bone so tightly that it would prove

Fig. 1a Fig. 1b Fig. 1c

Radiographs showing a) a periprosthetic fracture around a matt-surfaced stem with a loose socket; b) reduction
and fixation of the fracture with a plate and the use of fine mesh to contain the graft in Gruen zone VI and c) at
follow-up at five years. The fracture has healed and the clinical result was good.

THE JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY


FEMORAL IMPACTION GRAFTING WITH CEMENT IN REVISION TOTAL HIP REPLACEMENT 811

Table III. The preoperative and postoperative Charnley scores for vertical dimension of the radiolucency craniolateral to the
patients who underwent femoral impaction grafting during revision hip
replacement shoulder of the stem in Zone 1,26 as described by Fowler et
al,30 through the use of digitised x-rays and the Orthochart
Number Range of
Charnley group of hips Pain Function movement system.
Preoperatively
Clinical assessment and survivorship analysis. The Charnley
A 53 2.6 2.2 3.9 modification of the Merle dAubign-Postel classification31
B 83 3.1 2.2 3.8 was used. Scores are given (Table III) for all 193 hips in the
C 53 2.6 2.2 3.8 patients surviving more than two years excluding the group
Mean grade 2.8 2.2 3.8
Postoperatively
designated as failures. In addition, Oxford hip scores32 were
A 23 5.3 4.7 5.5 obtained at final review. We calculated the survivorship
B 67 5.4 4.2 5.3 analysis of the femoral component using the life-table
C 103 5.4 2.9 5.1 method for all patients, using both clinical and radiological
Mean grade 5.3 3.9 5.3
results as endpoints.1,2,33-36

Results
impossible to twist the phantom, which is the proximal Intraoperative problems. There were 17 intraoperative
impactor, within the mantle of graft or extract it by hand fractures. In eight, the fracture was appropriately treated at
alone. After a trial reduction for leg length and stability the the initial operation and healed satisfactorily. In eight, the
phantom was removed using a slap hammer. Cement was fracture was missed at the time of surgery and in one it was
then delivered into the neo-medullary canal in a retrograde treated inadequately with one wire. These nine hips devel-
fashion using a gun with a tapered spout and pressurised oped further complications. There were seven femoral per-
before the stem was introduced to the rehearsed depth. A forations at the time of surgery. All but one of these was
sorbothane horse-collar25 was then applied to maintain recognised and dealt with appropriately without sequelae.
pressure until polymerisation. Postoperatively, patients One went on to fracture through the compromised area of
were mobilised touch-weight-bearing with crutches on the bone.
second postoperative day. There were no deaths in these patients attributable to the
Radiological assessment. Preoperative, postoperative and revision surgery.
final follow-up films were analysed by four surgeons (BRH, Failures. There have been five femoral reoperations due to
HWE, GAG and AJT). We noted the hips which were desig- deep infection (2.2%). Two hips (1%) developed early post-
nated as failures, for whatever reason and those which had operative infection. There were three later infections. One
undergone further femoral surgery. Twelve patients died followed an acetabular revision, one an open reduction for
with less than two years follow-up and their radiographs dislocation and one was caused by the haematogenous
were not included. Radiographs were not available for 23 of spread of an urinary tract infection 11 years after surgery.
the 193 hips in patients surviving more than two years who Twelve (5%) femoral reoperations were carried out for
were not designated as failures; 170 radiographs in patients fracture or aseptic loosening. There were two revisions for
with surviving femoral components who had radiological mechanical loosening and five in the nine patients with
follow-up for more than two years were therefore analysed missed or inadequately treated intraoperative fractures. One
in detail. Initial assessment included alignment of the stem, required a reoperation but was unfit for surgery and subse-
evidence of radiolucencies at the cement-graft and graft- quently died at 35 months after revision, one stem subsided
host interfaces, and a record of the Gruen zones26 in which more than 20 mm and had pain, another subsided and
cortical bone stock was compromised. Later assessment rotated within the femur but had no pain and one migrated
included the appearance or progress of lucent lines, the painfully into marked varus and had subsided 6 mm. The
appearance of the graft including trabecular changes and two symptomatic patients elected to have no further surgery.
cortical healing, as defined by Gie et al,21 the latter being Of nine postoperative fractures, four required no treat-
sought particularly in those zones in which the cortex was ment (two had an isolated fracture of the greater trochanter)
judged to have been compromised before the grafting opera- and five required plating with the stem remaining in situ.
tion. These occurred at 4, 18, 27, 74 and 103 months post-opera-
Even using radiostereometric analysis (RSA),27,28 which tion.
was not available in Exeter when this study was being The overall rate of aseptic loosening including reopera-
undertaken, the accurate measurement of migration of the tion for fracture or mechanical loosening and those desig-
stem following impaction grafting and the exact identifica- nated as failures which have not had further surgery is
tion of where it is occurring is difficult, and without it, therefore 7% (16/221).
impossible.29 However, the geometry of the stem lends Survivorship analysis. Survivorship with any femoral
itself to the reasonably accurate assessment of its subsid- reoperation as the endpoint was 90.5% (confidence interval,
ence within the cement and this was done by measuring the 82 to 98)1 at 10 to 11 years (Fig. 2) and using femoral
VOL. 85-B, No. 6, AUGUST 2003
812 B. R. HALLIDAY, H. W. ENGLISH, A. J. TIMPERLEY, G. A. GIE, R. S. M. LING

100
90
80
70
Survivorship (%)

60
Fig. 2
50
Survivorship with any femoral re-operation for
40 any cause as the endpoint.
30
20
10
0
0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 8 - 9 9 - 10 10 - 11 11 - 12
Years since operation

100
90
Survivorship (%)

80
70
60 Fig. 3
50
Survivorship with revision for symptomatic loos-
40 ening of the femoral component as the endpoint.
30
20
10
0
0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 8 - 9 9 - 10 10 - 11 11 - 12 12 - 13 13 - 14
Years since operation

100
90
Survivorship (%)

80
70
60 Fig. 4
50
Survivorship with mechanical loosening of the
40 femoral component, whether revised or not as the
30 endpoint.
20
10
0
0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 8 - 9 9 - 10 10 - 11 11 - 12 12 - 13 13 - 14
Years since operation

reoperation for symptomatic aseptic loosening as the end- drift of patients from Charnley category A to category C.
point the survivorship was 99.1% (confidence interval, 96 to Significant improvements in pain relief, function and range
100)2 (Fig. 3). A survivorship curve was also constructed of movement were seen at follow-up. Function was predict-
for those stems which were designated as being loose, ably more compromised in category C patients. The mean
whether operated on or not (Fig. 4). grading of pain for hips in the Endo-Klinik grades 1, 2, 3
Clinical status. Pre- and postoperative scores are shown in and 4 loss of bone stock were 4.6, 5.36, 5.47 and 5.50. The
Table III. As may be expected with time there was a gradual low score in grade 1 hips, of which there were 12, was influ-
THE JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY
FEMORAL IMPACTION GRAFTING WITH CEMENT IN REVISION TOTAL HIP REPLACEMENT 813

Table IV. Varus to valgus alignment of 170 surviving stems following Table VI. The mean subsidence of the stems
femoral impaction grafting during revision hip replacement increased according to the Endo-Klinik grade in
the patients who underwent femoral impaction
Varus Neutral Valgus grafting with cement during revision hip
Degrees 11 to 6 5 to 3 2 to 0 to 2 3 to 5 6 to 10 replacement
Number 9 26 129 5 1
Endo-Klinik grade Mean subsidence (mm)
(%) 5 15 76 3 1
1 0.9
2 2.9
3 6.3
4 12.0
Table V. Last outcome scores for the 14 hips with more than 10 mm of
subsidence, including Oxford scores when available
Charnley score
Table VII. Brooker classfication of
Subsidence Range of Oxford Femoral heterotopic ossification in 170 of the patients
(mm) Grade Pain Function movement score grade who underwent femoral impaction grafting
45 C 6 3 5 24 3 during revision hip replacement
45 C 6 1 5 32 4 Number of
25 C 5 2 3 3 Brooker Grade patients % of group
25 B 5 4 5 2
0 58 34
25 B 6 5 6 13 3
1 79 46
25 B 6 3 5 20 3
2 11 6
25 B 5 4 4 2
3 8 5
20 A 6 4 6 22 3
4 2 1
17 C 6 2 4 44 2
Not scored 12 7
15 B 6 6 5 14 2
14 B 6 4 5 17 3
13 C 6 2 4 3
11 C 6 3 4 23 3
11 B 6 5 5 14 3 scores of the 14 stems which subsided more than 10 mm are
Mean 5.8 3.4 4.7 22.9 shown in Table V. They are not classified as failures. the
mean subsidence increased with increasing severity of loss
of bone stock according to the EndoKlinik Classification
enced by two who underwent impaction grafting for septic (Table VI).
loosening and scored 3 for pain. The incidence of heterotopic bone formation is presented
Radiological assessment in Table VII. All patients who were able to tolerate non-ster-
The postoperative femoral alignment is presented in Table oidal anti-inflammatory medication were treated with
IV. The two stems re-revised for symptomatic aseptic loos- indomethacin37 for between three and five days periopera-
ening had subsided into varus and 76% of stems were within tively in an effort to reduce this complication.
2 of neutral. Later graft appearance
Subsidence. The incidence and extent of subsidence at the Trabecular incorporation. There was trabecular incorpora-
stem-cement interface is shown in Figure 5. The clinical tion in 335 of the assessable Gruen zones, which repre-
sented 28% of the total zones and remodelling in 409 zones,
which represented 34%. No definite change or a difficulty in
interpreting the appearances, such as when bone was
Subsidence obscured by mesh or cement, was noted in 446 zones
100 (37%).
90 Cortical healing was judged to have occurred in 343 of the
80 zones (87%) in which cortical compromise had been present
Number of patients

70 at the time of impaction grafting.


60 Lucent lines at the graft-host interface on the AP radio-
50 graphs of functioning hips (i.e., excluding the failures) were
40 seen in 46 zones (3.8%) in 37 hips (22%) of a possible 1190
30 zones in 170 hips.
20 Lucent lines at the cement-graft interface of functioning
10 hips were seen in 24 zones (2%) in 15 hips (9%).
0
0 to 2 3 to 5 6 to 10 11 to 15 > 15
Discussion
Subsidence (mm)
The technique of femoral impaction grafting has evolved as
Fig. 5
clinical results have accumulated and as dedicated instru-
Incidence and extent of subsidence at stem-cement interface. ments have come into use. Overall, the results in this series
VOL. 85-B, No. 6, AUGUST 2003
814 B. R. HALLIDAY, H. W. ENGLISH, A. J. TIMPERLEY, G. A. GIE, R. S. M. LING

in terms of clinical outcome and survivorship of the femoral loading. They suggested that the design of the implant
component have been good. There have been significant which is used in impaction grafting must be able to accom-
improvements in scores for pain, function and movement, as modate such viscoelastic deformation of the graft without
well as in the Oxford Hip scores, which have been main- causing loosening at the interfaces.
tained into the second decade of review and associated with The polished Exeter Universal stem, which is of a force
continuing benign x-ray appearances. closed48 or taper-slip49 design was used in all cases in
Only two of the twelve femoral re-revisions were carried this series. RSA has revealed that in primary interventions
out for recurrent aseptic loosening. The most common indi- this device migrates axially within the cement mantle more
cation for re-operation on the femur was an intra- or post- than any other type of stem which has been studied50 and
operative fracture. This constituted all of the remaining ten yet there is no associated migration between the cement and
cases of femoral reoperation. In five hips a fracture was not the bone.51-54 This is a unique pattern of migration as far as
noticed at the time of the original impaction grafting so that cemented stems are concerned and is associated with
further surgery was a consequence of surgical error and improved torsional stability,55-57 probably because the load-
might, therefore, have been avoided. The remaining five ing regime which axial movement of the stem within the
fractures occurred after surgery and none required a revision cement imposes on the interfaces and the cement is predom-
of the femoral component. The fractures were reduced and inantly compression.56,58-62 The issue is whether the stem
fixed with a plate leaving the stems and proximal femoral behaves in the same way when used in impaction grafting
reconstructions intact. and whether this mechanical behaviour confers any benefit
The incidence of postoperative femoral fracture has, in that scenario.
however, lead us to re-examine our indications for the use Ornstein et al53 have studied the use of the Exeter stem in
of a longer stem. Although in two cases the fracture was impaction grafting and have shown by RSA, modified to
associated with a significant traumatic episode, in three include marker beads in the cement as well as the bone, that
there was poor quality bone at the level of the tip of the stem as well as subsidence at the stem cement interface, there is
and a fracture occurred through this area. Since 1997, subsidence of the cement in relation to the femur by approx-
instruments have been in use that allow impaction of the imately 0.3 mm which occurs mainly during the first three
graft along the whole length of long stems, so that weak- postoperative months and thereafter stabilises. This move-
ened areas of bone near the tip can be bypassed. This ment must occur at one or more of the cement graft inter-
change in technique has, so far, substantially reduced the face, within the graft itself, or at the graft host interface.
incidence of postoperative fracture. Extramedullary aug- Even RSA cannot currently clarify these matters, however,
mentation of femora and shorter stems are now reserved for but movement within the graft with further impaction under
younger patients where there is more concern over the use load from rolling and sliding of the bone chips and the vis-
of longer stems. coelastic deformations described by Giesen et al45 seem the
Radiologically the appearance of the graft is difficult to most likely. The evidence from Ornsteins work supports the
interpret.38 Where cortical and trabecular remodelling are view that the device when used with impaction grafting,
clearly seen, Linder39 showed that this corresponds to behaves in the same way as it does in primary interven-
viable new bone. In the present series, trabecular remodel- tions.53
ling was seen in a third of the zones which were analysed. Whether this mechanical behaviour confers any benefit
There was cortical healing in 87% of zones where there had in impaction grafting can only be clarified by long-term
previously been cortical compromise, emphasising the value studies. In the short term, good results with impaction
of impaction grafting in reconstituting lost bone. As far as grafting have been reported using a variety of different
radiolucent lines are concerned, the appearances must be stems of shape closed48 design.7,10-12,15,40,63 In the only
regarded as very satisfactory and there has been no recur- randomised, prospective, radiostereometric study known to
rence of focal femoral lysis. the authors40 in which a force closed48 or taper-slip49
The issue of subsidence of the stem in femoral impaction stem (the Exeter) has been compared with a shape
grafting has attracted considerable attention.16,17,19,20 Its closed48 or composite beam49 stem (the Charnley Elite
extent and pattern depend on many factors including the plus) in impaction grafting, there was no difference in the
geometry of the stem,40 surgical technique7,41-43 and the clinical outcome or apparent bony remodelling at two
physical nature of the graft.43-47 With regard to the latter, years, by which time the mean subsidence between the
Brewster et al44 demonstrated experimentally that in con- stem and the femur was 1.7 mm with the Exeter and 0.2
tained bone defects the graft behaves as a friable aggregate, mm with the Elite. The technique of RSA used in this study
and its resistance to load depends on the distribution of par- could not determine at which interface the subsidence had
ticle size, the adequacy of graft compaction and the applica- occurred. Van Doorn et al40 reported that on plain X-rays
tion of loads normal to the material. Giesen et al45 no debonding of the stem-cement interface, no fractures of
concluded from their experimental work on the mechanical the cement and no radiolucencies were seen in either
and viscoelastic behaviour of graft that in clinical use it was group. Even in primary interventions, every Exeter stem
bound to be subjected to permanent deformation following debonds at this interface51-54,62 and this radiographic
THE JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY
FEMORAL IMPACTION GRAFTING WITH CEMENT IN REVISION TOTAL HIP REPLACEMENT 815

Fig. 6a Fig. 6b Fig. 6c

(a) Preoperative, (b) postoperative and (c) 10-year radiographs of an impaction grafted femur. The subsidence
between stem and cement appears to have stopped by 10 years in this very active patient. Dramatic cortical
healing is seen in Gruen zones 2 and 3. Trabecular remodelling is evident both medially and laterally around
the stem.

finding is difficult to understand. Bearing in mind Orn-


Patient 1
steins RSA findings,53 however, approximately 1.5 of the
15
1.7 mm of subsidence of the Exeter stem which was 12
reported by van Doorn et al40 would have been expected to 9
mm

occur at the stem-cement interface, leaving 0.2 mm to occur 6


3
somewhere between the cement and the femur, which is 0
almost the same amount as reported by Ornstein. However, 0 36 60 108
Follow-up (months)
van Doorn also showed40 that by two years, both the medial
migration (into varus) and the posterior migration (into ret- Patient 2
roversion) of the head of the Elite were more than those of
15
the Exeter by factors of two and 100, respectively. Signifi- 12
cant posterior migration of the head during the first two 9
mm

6
years is a poor prognostic feature of cemented stems in pri- 3
mary interventions.56 0
0 3 24 36 60 108
The maximum subsidence of the Exeter stem recorded at Follow-up (months)
two years by van Doorn et al40 was 3 mm. In the present
series, no stem with subsidence of 3 mm at two years has Patient 3
yet failed due to aseptic loosening and subsidence signifi- 15
cantly greater than this is evidently compatible with good 12
9
mm

long-term function and benign radiographic appearances 6


into the second decade of follow-up (Fig. 6). In fact, no 3
deterioration in clinical scores has been seen with increas- 0
0 3 6 12 36 60 84 108 132
ing subsidence of the stem within the cement mantle. Follow-up (months)
Nevertheless, we believe that marked subsidence may be
Fig. 7
associated with splitting of the mantle and some movement
between the cement and the host bone. In this series 14 Graphs of subsidence at the stem-cement interface
against time in three cases with early subsidence of more
stems (8.2%) (excluding those categorised as failures) sub- than 10 mm. The stems are seen to stabilise. None of
sided more than 10 mm. Most of these patients had no pain these patients complained of pain in the hip.

VOL. 85-B, No. 6, AUGUST 2003


816 B. R. HALLIDAY, H. W. ENGLISH, A. J. TIMPERLEY, G. A. GIE, R. S. M. LING

in their hips (Table V). In these cases, subsidence occurred References


early, and in some appeared to stop later, implying that the
1. Peto R, Pike MC, Armitage P, et al. Design and analysis of randomised
device has become stable (Fig. 7). clinical trials requiring prolonged observation of each patient. II. Anal-
Undoubtedly, the major factor in controlling subsidence ysis and examples. Br J Cancer 1977;35:1-39.
is surgical technique, and subsidence can be reduced by 2. Rothman KJ. Estimation of confidence limits for the cumulative prob-
ability of survival in life table analysis. J Chronic Dis 1978;31:557-60.
employing the following technical modifications: 3. Simon J-P, Fowler JL, Gie GA, Ling RS, Timperley AJ. Impaction
i) the use of larger bone chips in capacious canals, with a cancellous grafting of the femur in cemented total hip revision arthro-
plasty. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 1991;73-B(Suppl 1):73.
better distribution of particle size and washing of the
4. Elting JJ, Mikhail WE, Zicat BA, et al. Preliminary report of impac-
chips.7,44,47,64 tion grafting for exchange femoral arthroplasty. Clin Orthop
ii) tighter compaction of these chips within the 1995;319:159-67.
femur.7,41-45 5. Slooff TJJH, Buma P, Schreurs BW, et al. Acetabular and femoral recon-
struction with impacted graft and cement. Clin Orthop 1996;324:108-15.
iii) in cases with severe loss of bone stock, the use of 6. Mikhail WE, Wretenberg PF, Weidenhielm LR, Mikhail MN. Com-
longer stems. plex cemented revision using polished stem and morselized allograft: min-
imum 5-years follow-up. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 1999;119:288-91.
The technique, as practised today in Exeter, involves a
7. Karrholm J, Hultmark P, Carlsson L, Malchau H. Subsidence of a
femoral reconstruction consisting of host bone and, in cases non-polished stem in revisions of the hip using impaction allograft: eval-
of severe loss of bone stock, wire mesh. In order to define uation with radiostereometry and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry.
J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 1999;81-B:135-42.
more clearly the indications for the technique we need, in
8. van Biezen FC, ten Have BL, Verhaar JAN. Impaction bone-grafting
addition to longer term follow-up, histological analysis of of severely defective femora in revision total hip surgery: 21 hips fol-
bone within areas where mesh has been applied since it is lowed for 45-85 months. Acta Orthop Scand 2000;71:135-42.
impossible to interpret these changes radiologically. It 9. Flugsrud GB, Ovre S, Grogaard B, Nordsletten L. Cemented femoral
impaction bone grafting for severe osteolysis in revision hip arthro-
would give cause for greater optimism in these cases if plasty: good results at 4 year follow-up of 10 patients. Arch Orthop
revascularisation and remodelling of bone was seen, even Trauma Surg 2000;120:386-9.
10. Fetzer GB, Callaghan JJ, Templeton JE, et al. Impaction allografting
though it has been suggested65 that a composite of necrotic with cement for extensive femoral bone loss in revision hip surgery: a 4
bone and fibrous scar tissue might be preferable for both to 8-year follow-up study. J Arthroplasty 2001;16:195-202.
mechanical and biological reasons. In those cases where 11. de Roeck NJ, Drabu KJ. Impaction bone grafting using freeze-dried
allograft in revision hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2001;16:201-6.
bony healing does not occur, it is evident that the biologi- 12. Boldt JG, Dilawari P, Agarwal S, Drabu KJ. Revision total hip arthro-
cally inert composite which forms is capable of carrying plasty using impaction bone grafting with cemented nonpolished stems
load and there is no evidence of time-dependent deteriora- and Charnley cups. J Arthroplasty 2001;16:943-52.
13. Lind M, Krarup N, Mikkelsen S, Horlyck E. Exchange impaction
tion in the histological appearances.39 allografting for femoral revision hip arthroplasty: results in 87 cases
Although there is a need for more understanding of the after 3.6 years follow-up. J Arthroplasty 2002;17:158-64.
complex biological and mechanical issues involved, there is 14. Gore DR. Impaction bone grafting for total hip revision. Int Orthop
2002;26:162-215.
now much greater appreciation of the technical issues
15. Ullmark G, Hallin G, Nilsson O. Impacted corticocancellous allografts
involved in femoral reconstruction using impaction grafting. and cement for revision of the femur component in total hip arthroplasty.
The current indications for the use of this technique are J Arthroplasty 2002;17:140-9.
those cases in which the bone stock is compromised or in 16. Eldridge JDJ, Smith EJ, Hubble MJ, Whitehouse SL, Learmonth
ID. Massive early subsidence following femoral impaction grafting.
which the existing host interface would not allow the satis- J Arthroplasty 1997;12:535-40.
factory fixation of an implant, especially in the young. It is 17. Masterson EL, Masri BA, Duncan CP. The cement mantle in the Exe-
ter impaction allografting technique: a cause for concern. J Arthroplasty
possibly not indicated in the very elderly or those with a 1997;12:759-64.
limited life expectancy in which distal fixation can be 18. Jazrawi LM, Della Valle CJ, Kummer FJ, Adler EM, Di Cesare PE.
achieved and where major proximal femoral reconstruction Catastrophic failure of a cemented, collarless, polished, tapered cobalt-
chromium femoral stem used with impaction bone-grafting: a report of
would be required. The use of longer stems should be con- two cases. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 1999;81-A:844-7.
sidered in fractures of femora, where there is poor quality 19. Meding JB, Ritter MA, Keating EM, Faris PM. Impaction bone-
bone at the level of the tip of a conventional stem, or in grafting before insertion of a femoral stem with cement in revision total
hip arthroplasty: a minimum two-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint
cases of Endoklinik 3 and 4 loss of bone stock. Most of the Surg [Am] 1997;79-A:1834-41.
complications reported in the literature and at our centre 20. Pekkarinen J, Alho A, Lepisto J, et al. Impaction bone grafting in revi-
sion hip surgery: a high incidence of complications. J Bone Joint Surg
have resulted from inappropriate surgical technique. The [Br] 2000;82-B:103-7.
conscientious application of these principles should further 21. Gie GA, Linder L, Ling RSM, et al. Impacted cancellous allografts
improve the results which may be achieved using this tech- and cement for revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg [Br]
1993;75-B:14-21.
nique in revision hip surgery.
22. Gie GA, Linder L, Ling RSM, et al. Contained morselized allograft in
revision total hip arthroplasty: surgical technique. Orthop Clin North
The authors acknowledge with gratitude the help of Mrs R. Sculpher, Mrs Am 1993;24:717-25.
Sandy Wraight and Mrs N. Wendover in the Hip Unit at the Princess Eliza-
beth Orthopaedic Centre, Exeter. 23. Gie GA, Ling RSM. Femoral bone grafting: intramedullary impaction
The author or one or more of the authors have received or will receive grafting. In: Steinberg ME, Garino JP, eds. Revision total hip arthro-
benefits for personal or professional use from a commercial party related di- plasty. Philadelphia, etc. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, 1998:281-97.
rectly or indirectly to the subject of this article. In addition, benefits have 24. Gie GA, Ling RSM, Timperley AJ. Femoral revision with impaction
been or will be directed to a research fund, foundation, educational institu- cancellous allografting. Surgical techniques in orthopaedics and trau-
tion, or other non-profit organisation with which one or more of the authors matology. Paris, Editions Scientifiques et Medicales Elsevier SAS
are associated. (Paris), 2001:A-10.

THE JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY


FEMORAL IMPACTION GRAFTING WITH CEMENT IN REVISION TOTAL HIP REPLACEMENT 817

25. Heyse-Moore GH, Ling RSM. Current cement techniques. In: Marti 47. Dunlop DG, Brewster NT, Madabushi SP, et al. Techniques to
RK, ed. Progress in cemented total hip surgery and revision. Excerpta improve the shear strength of impacted bone graft. J Bone Joint Surg
Medica, Amsterdam 1983;71-86. [Am] 2003;85-A:639-46.
26. Gruen TA, McNeice G, Amstutz HC. Modes of failure of cemented 48. Huiskes R, Verdonschot N, Nivbrant B. Migration, stem shape and
stem-type femoral components. Clin Orthop 1979;141:17-27. surface finish. Clin Orthop 1998;355:103-12.
27. Selvik G. A roentgen stereophotogrammetry: a method for the study of 49. Shen G. Femoral stem fixation: an engineering interpretation of the
the kinematics of the skeletal system. Acta Orthop Scand 1989;60(Suppl long-term outcome of Charnley and Exeter stems. J Bone Joint Surg
232):1-51. [Br] 1998;80-B:754-6.
28. Karrholm J, Herberts P, Hultmark P, et al. Radiostereometry of hip 50. Karrholm J, Nivbrant B, Thanner J, et al. Radiostereometric evalua-
prostheses: review of methodology and clinical results. Clin Orthop tion of hip implant design and surface finish: micromotion of cemented
1997;344:94-110. femoral stems. Scientific exhibit presented at the 67th Annual Meeting
29. Malchau H, Karrholm J, Wang YX, Herberts P. Accuracy of migra- of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Orlando, USA,
tion analysis in hip arthroplasty: digitised and conventional radiography, 2000.
compared to radiostereometry in 51 patients. Acta Orthop Scand 51. Alfaro-Adrian J, Gill HS, Marks B, Murray DW. Cement migration
1995;66:418-24. after THA: a comparison of Charnley elite and Exeter femoral stems
30. Fowler J, Gie GA, Lee AJC, Ling RSM. Experience with Exeter Hip using RSA. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 1999;81-B:130-4.
since 1970. Orthop Clin North Am 1988;19:477-89. 52. Ornstein E, Franzn H, Johnsson R, et al. Does the tapered shaped
31. Charnley J. Numerical grading of clinical results. In: Low friction Exeter stem migrate at the stem-cement interface or/and at the cement-
arthroplasty of the hip: theory and practice. Berlin, etc. Springer-Verlag, bone interface. Acta Orthop Scand 1997;68(Suppl 274):111.
1979:20-24. 53. Ornstein E, Franzn H, Johnsson R, et al. Early subsidence of the
32. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A, Murray D. Questionnaire on the Exeter femoral stem within the cement mantle in primary arthroplasties
perceptions of patients about total hip repalcement. J Bone Joint Surg and in revisions using impacted allografts and cement: a roentgen stere-
[Br] 1996;78-B:185-90. ophogrammetric analysis. Hip International 1999;9:139-43.
33. Dobbs HS. Survivorship of total hip replacements. J Bone Joint Surg 54. Nivbrant B, Soderlund P, Karrholm J. Migration of the Exeter stem
[Br] 1980;62-B:168-73. relative to bone and cement: an RSA study. Paper read at SIROT-Sydney
1999.
34. Carr AJ, Morris RW, Murray DW, Pynsent PB. Survival analysis in
joint replacement surgery. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 1993;75-B:178-82. 55. Gill HS, Alfaro-Adrian J, Murray DW. The effect of anteversion on
femoral component stability assessed by RSA. Trans Orthop Res Soc
35. Murray DW, Carr JA, Bulstrode C. Survival analysis of joint replace- 1999;24:279.
ments. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 1993;75-B:697-704.
56. Alfaro-Adrian J, Gill HS, Murray DW. Should total hip arthroplasty
36. Ferdinand RD, Pinder IM. Correspondence: survival analysis of joint components be designed to subside? A radiostereometric analysis
replacements. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 1997;79-B:878. study of the Charnley Elite & Exeter stems. J Arthroplasty 2001;
37. Amstutz HC, Fowble VA, Schmalzried TP, Dorey FJ. Short-course 16:598-605.
indomethacin prevents heterotopic ossification in a high-risk population 57. Gill HS, Alfaro-Adrian J, Alfaro-Adrian C, McLardy-Smith P,
following total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 1997;12:126-32. Murray DW. The effect of anteversion on femoral component stability
38. Nelissen RG, Bauer TW, Weidenhielm LR, LeGolvan DP, Mikhail assessed by radiostereometric analysis. J Arthroplasty 2002;17:997-
WE. Revision hip arthroplasty with the use of cement and impaction 1005.
grafting: histological analysis of four cases. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 58. Miles AW, Clift SE, Bannister G. The effect of the surface finish of the
1995;77-A:412-22. femoral component on load transmission in total hip replacement. J
39. Linder L. Cancellous impaction grafting in the human femur: histolog- Bone Joint Surg [Br] 1990;72-B:736.
ical and radiographic observations in 6 autopsy femurs and 8 biopsies. 59. Wheeler JPG, Miles AW, Clift S. The influence of stem-cement inter-
Acta Orthop Scand 2000;71:543-52. face in total hip replacement: a comparison of experimental and finite
40. van Doorn WJ, ten Have B, van Biezen FC, et al. Migration of the element approaches. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part H 1997;211:181-6.
femoral stem after impaction bone grafting: first results of an ongoing 60. Lee AJC. The time dependent properties of polymethylmethacrylate
randomised study of the Exeter and Elite Plus femoral stems using bone cement: the interaction of shape of femoral stems, surface finish
radiostereometric analysis. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 2002;84-B:825-31. and bone cement. In: Learmonth ID, ed. Interfaces in total hip arthro-
41. Malkani AL, Voor MJ, Fee KA, Bates CS. Femoral component revi- plasty. Berlin, etc. Springer-Verlag, 1999:11-19.
sion using impacted morsellised cancellous graft: a biomechanical study 61. Yoon Y, Oxland T, Hodgson A, et al. Structural behaviour of a bone-
of implant stability. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 1996;78-B:973-8. cement implant system under axial load: the effect of stem-cement
42. Kuiper JH, Merry JC, Cheah K, et al. Early mechanical stabillity of bonding and geometrical factors. Trans Orthop Res Soc 2001;26:1073.
impaction-grafted prostheses: effects of surgical technique, implant 62. Williams HDW, Browne G, Gie GA, et al. The Exeter Universal
design and graft composition. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 1996;78-B(Suppl cement femoral component at 8-12 years: a study of the first 325 cases.
II & III):136-7. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 2002;84-B:324-334.
43. Hostner J, Hultmark P, Karrholm J, Malchau H, Tveit M. Impaction 63. Leopold SS, Berger RA, Rosenberg AG, et al. Impaction allografting
technique and graft treatment in revisions of the femoral component: with cement for revision of the femoral component: a minimum four-
laboratory studies and clinical validation. J Arthroplasty 2001;16:76-82. year follow-up study with use of a precoated femoral stem. J Bone Joint
44. Brewster NT, Gillespie WJ, Howie CR, et al. Mechanical considerations Surg [Am] 1999;81-A:1080-92.
in impaction bone grafting. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 1999;81-B:118-24. 64. Dunlop DG, Brewster NT, Madabhushi SPG, Usmani AS, Howie
45. Giesen EB, Lamerights NM, Verdonschot N, et al. Mechanical char- CR. Factors influencing bone graft strength: to wash or not to wash? J
acteristics of impacted morsellised bone grafts used in revision of total Bone Joint Surg [Br] 2000;82-B(Supl I):78.
hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 1999;81-B:1052-7. 65. Tagil M, Aspenberg P. Fibrous tissue armouring increases the mechan-
46. Ullmark G. Bigger size and defatting of bone chips will increase cup ical strength of an impacted bone graft. Acta Orthop Scand 2001;72:78-
stability. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2000;120:445-7. 82.

VOL. 85-B, No. 6, AUGUST 2003

You might also like