Dataset Information

Crack revision improves fixation of uncemented HA-coated implants compared with reaming: an experiment in dogs.

ABSTRACT: The crack procedure is a surgical technique for preparing the implant cavity at revision of loose joint replacement components. It disrupts the neocortical bone shell that typically forms around the cavity. Using an animal model, we compared the crack technique with reaming. Twenty micromotion implants were inserted bilaterally into the knees of 10 dogs according to our revision protocol, allowing formation of a standardized revision cavity (loose implant, fibrous tissue, and sclerotic bone rim). Eight weeks later we performed revision surgery. On the control side, in which the neocortex was removed, the cavity was reamed. On the intervention side, in which the neocortex was perforated but left in situ, the cavity was cracked. For revision we used non-motioning hydroxyapatite (HA)-coated, plasma-sprayed titanium implants. Observation after revision was 4 weeks. The implants revised by the crack technique had better mechanical fixation in all mechanical parameters by the push-out test. The crack revisions also provided more new bone formation around the implants compared with the reamed revisions but had no effect on new bone ongrowth. The data suggest using this bone-sparing technique may be superior to reaming in terms of achieving improved early implant fixation of uncemented HA-coated revision implants.

SUBMITTER: Baas J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2745446 | biostudies-other | 2009 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceConsensus guidelines and systematic reviews have suggested that cemented fixation is more effective than uncemented fixation in hemiarthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures. Given that these recommendations are based on research performed outside the United States, it is uncertain whether these findings also reflect the US experience.ObjectiveTo compare the outcomes associated with cemented vs uncemented hemiarthroplasty in a large US integrated health care system.Design, setting, and participantsRetrospective cohort study of 12 491 patients aged 60 years and older who underwent hemiarthroplasty treatment of a hip fracture between 2009 and 2017 at 1 of the 36 hospitals owned by Kaiser Permanente, a large US health maintenance organization. Patients were followed up until membership termination, death, or the study end date of December 31, 2017.ExposuresHemiarthroplasty (prosthetic replacement of the femoral head) fixation via bony growth into a porous-coated implant (uncemented) or with cement.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome measure was aseptic revision, defined as any reoperation performed after the index procedure involving exchange of the existing implant for reasons other than infection. Secondary outcomes were mortality (in-hospital, postdischarge, and overall), 90-day medical complications, 90-day emergency department visits, and 90-day unplanned readmissions.ResultsAmong 12 491 patients in the study cohort who underwent hemiarthroplasty for hip fracture (median age, 83 years; 8660 women [69.3%]), 6042 (48.4%) had undergone uncemented fixation and 6449 (51.6%) had undergone cemented fixation, and the median length of follow-up was 3.8 years. In the multivariable regression analysis controlling for confounders, uncemented fixation was associated with a significantly higher risk of aseptic revision (cumulative incidence at 1 year after operation, 3.0% vs 1.3%; absolute difference, 1.7% [95% CI, 1.1%-2.2%]; hazard ratio [HR], 1.77 [95% CI, 1.43-2.19]; P < .001). Of the 6 prespecified secondary end points, none showed a statistically significant difference between groups, including in-hospital mortality (1.7% for uncemented fixation vs 2.0% for cemented fixation; HR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.73-1.21]; P = .61) and overall mortality (cumulative incidence at 1 year after operation: 20.0% for uncemented fixation vs 22.8% for cemented fixation; HR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.90-1.01]; P = .08).Conclusions and relevanceAmong patients with hip fracture treated with hemiarthroplasty in a large US integrated health care system, uncemented fixation, compared with cemented fixation, was associated with a statistically significantly higher risk of aseptic revision. These findings suggest that US surgeons should consider cemented fixation in the hemiarthroplasty treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures in the absence of contraindications.

Dataset Information

Crack revision improves fixation of uncemented HA-coated implants compared with reaming: an experiment in dogs.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets