This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Letters to the Editor: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Letters to the Editor are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by MULROY, W. F.
Right arrow Articles by HARRIS, W. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by MULROY, W. F.
Right arrow Articles by HARRIS, W. H.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 78:325-30 (1996)
© 1996 The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.

Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty with Use of So-Called Second-Generation Cementing Techniques for Aseptic Loosening of the Femoral Component. A Fifteen-Year-Average Follow-up Study*

WILLIAM F. MULROY, M.D.{dagger} and WILLIAM H. HARRIS, M.D.{ddagger}, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS

Investigation performed at the Orthopaedic Biomechanics Laboratory and the Hip and Implant Unit, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston

We reviewed the results in a consecutive series of forty-three unselected hips (forty-one patients) after revision of the femoral component, because of aseptic loosening, with use of so-called second-generation cementing techniques. This series was previously reported on after average follow-up intervals of six and 11.7 years; we now report the results after an average duration of follow-up of 15.1 years (range, 14.2 to 17.5 years). None of the eight patients (eight hips) who had died before this review had had a reoperation. Over the course of the study period, repeat revision was done after four (11 per cent) of the thirty-six index procedures that were the first femoral revision and after three of the seven that were a second or third revision. Of the thirty-five hips in the thirty-three surviving patients, seven (20 per cent) had a repeat revision of the femoral component because of aseptic loosening. The average age at the time of the index revision for this group of patients was fifty-one years. This young age has been associated with distinctly poorer results after revision. In two additional hips (two patients), there was radiographic evidence of loosening of the femoral component. Therefore, the rate of loosening of the femoral component was 26 per cent (nine of thirty-five hips) at an average of 15.1 years. These results support the concept that so-called second-generation cementing techniques have decreased the prevalence of aseptic loosening after femoral revision, compared with the shorter-term results that have been reported after revision with use of so-called first-generation cementing techniques.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 JBJSHome page
M. W. Hungerford, D. S. Hungerford, H. S. Khanuja, B. P. Pietryak, and L. C. Jones
Survivorship of Femoral Revision Hip Arthroplasty in Patients with Osteonecrosis
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., November 1, 2006; 88(suppl_3): 126 - 130.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JBJSHome page
C. M. Haydon, R. Mehin, S. Burnett, C. H. Rorabeck, R. B. Bourne, R. W. McCalden, and S. J. MacDonald
Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty with Use of a Cemented Femoral Component. Results at a Mean of Ten Years
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., June 1, 2004; 86(6): 1179 - 1185.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JBJSHome page
C. M. Davis III, D. J. Berry, and W. S. Harmsen
Cemented Revision of Failed Uncemented Femoral Components of Total Hip Arthroplasty
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., July 8, 2003; 85(7): 1264 - 1269.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Am Acad Orthop SurgHome page
S. G. Maurer, A. C. Baitner, and P. E. Di Cesare
Reconstruction of the Failed Femoral Component and Proximal Femoral Bone Loss in Revision Hip Surgery
J. Am. Acad. Ortho. Surg., November 1, 2000; 8(6): 354 - 363.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JBJSHome page
S. S. LEOPOLD and A. G. ROSENBERG
Current Status of Impaction Allografting for Revision of a Femoral Component*{{dagger}}{{ddagger}}
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., September 1, 1999; 81(9): 1337 - 45.
[Full Text]

Home page
 JBJSHome page
S. S. LEOPOLD, R. A. BERGER, A. G. ROSENBERG, J. J. JACOBS, L. R. QUIGLEY, and J. O. GALANTE
Impaction Allografting with Cement for Revision of the Femoral Component. A Minimum Four-Year Follow-up Study with Use of a Precoated Femoral Stem
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., August 1, 1999; 81(8): 1080 - 92.
[Abstract] [Full Text]

Home page
 JBJSHome page
J. B. MEDING, M. A. RITTER, E. M. KEATING, and P. M. FARIS
Impaction Bone-Grafting before Insertion of a Femoral Stem with Cement in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty. A Minimum Two-Year Follow-up Study
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., December 1, 1997; 79(12): 1834 - 41.
[Abstract] [Full Text]

Home page
 JBJSHome page
J. R. McLAUGHLIN and W. H. HARRIS
Revision of the Femoral Component of a Total Hip Arthroplasty with the Calcar-Replacement Femoral Component. Results after a Mean of 10.8 Years Postoperatively
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., March 1, 1996; 78(3): 331 - 9.
[Abstract] [Full Text]