Display options
Cite
Berg AJ, Hoyle A, Yates E, et al. Cement-in-cement revision with the Exeter Short Revision Stem: A review of 50 consecutive hips. J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2019;11(1):47-55doi: 10.1016/j.jcot.2019.04.002.
Berg, A. J., Hoyle, A., Yates, E., Chougle, A., & Mohan, R. (2020). Cement-in-cement revision with the Exeter Short Revision Stem: A review of 50 consecutive hips. Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma, 11(1), 47-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcot.2019.04.002
Berg, Andrew J, et al. "Cement-in-cement revision with the Exeter Short Revision Stem: A review of 50 consecutive hips." Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma vol. 11,1 (2020): 47-55. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcot.2019.04.002
Berg AJ, Hoyle A, Yates E, Chougle A, Mohan R. Cement-in-cement revision with the Exeter Short Revision Stem: A review of 50 consecutive hips. J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2020 Jan-Feb;11(1):47-55. doi: 10.1016/j.jcot.2019.04.002. Epub 2019 Apr 09. PMID: 32001984; PMCID: PMC6985006.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2020 Jan-Feb;11(1):47-55. doi: 10.1016/j.jcot.2019.04.002. Epub 2019 Apr 09.

Cement-in-cement revision with the Exeter Short Revision Stem: A review of 50 consecutive hips.

Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma

Andrew J Berg, Antonia Hoyle, Edward Yates, Aslam Chougle, Rama Mohan

Affiliations

  1. Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, North Manchester General Hospital, Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Delaunays Road, Manchester, M8 5RB, UK.

PMID: 32001984 PMCID: PMC6985006 DOI: 10.1016/j.jcot.2019.04.002

Abstract

Revision of a well-fixed cemented femoral stem is technically challenging. The Exeter Short Revision Stem (SRS) was developed to facilitate cement-in-cement revision mitigating some of these challenges. We present the short to mid-term results of 50 cement-in-cement revisions performed with this implant. A retrospective review of all cement-in-cement revision with the Exeter SRS, at our institution, over a seven-year period between 2007 and 2014 was conducted. Records were assessed for radiological and clinical component loosening at greater than 12 months follow-up and for revision and complications at all time points. An Oxford Hip Score (OHS) and Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) for groin and thigh pain at rest and initial mobilisation were obtained. 50 implants in 46 patients were identified. Radiographic and clinical follow-up was available for 42 and 38 implants respectively at greater than 12 months. Mean radiographic follow-up was 5.1 years and clinical 4.9 years. There was no radiographic or clinical evidence of loosening. 3 revisions were performed, one for each of recurrent dislocation, infection and stem breakage. Median OHS was 39 (IQR 12) and mean NRS for groin pain at rest and initial mobilisation was 1.7 and 1.7 respectively and NRS for thigh pain at rest and initial mobilisation was 1.3 and 1.6 respectively with mean follow-up of 6.9 years. The Exeter SRS provides a viable option for cement-in-cement stem revision, with low revision, complication and loosening rates and good patient reported outcomes at short to mid-term follow up.

© 2019 Delhi Orthopedic Association. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Cement-in-cement; Exeter hip; Revision hip arthroplasty; Revision stem; Short stem

References

  1. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1993 Nov;75(6):869-71 - PubMed
  2. J Arthroplasty. 2007 Oct;22(7):1000-6 - PubMed
  3. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996 Sep;78(5):809-11 - PubMed
  4. Bone Joint J. 2015 Dec;97-B(12):1623-7 - PubMed
  5. J Surg Oncol. 2018 Mar;117(3):443-450 - PubMed
  6. J Arthroplasty. 2017 Apr;32(4):1227-1233 - PubMed
  7. J Arthroplasty. 2009 Dec;24(8):1200-4 - PubMed
  8. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009 Jun;91(6):730-7 - PubMed
  9. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007 Mar;89(3):393-5 - PubMed
  10. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2008 Oct;128(10):1193-9 - PubMed
  11. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009 May;91(5):577-82 - PubMed
  12. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 1992;206(1):47-9 - PubMed
  13. J Orthop. 2016 Jul 01;13(4):294-7 - PubMed
  14. Acta Orthop. 2009 Oct;80(5):548-52 - PubMed
  15. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006 Jun;88(6):730-3 - PubMed
  16. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008 Aug;90(8):1013-8 - PubMed
  17. Bone Joint J. 2017 Apr;99-B(4 Supple B):27-32 - PubMed
  18. Hip Int. 2014 Sep-Oct;24(5):434-41 - PubMed
  19. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1978 Feb;60(1):107-10 - PubMed
  20. J Orthop Sci. 2016 Nov;21(6):810-814 - PubMed
  21. Ann Rheum Dis. 1999 Sep;58(9):569-72 - PubMed
  22. J Arthroplasty. 2013 Jan;28(1):103-9.e1 - PubMed
  23. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007 Apr;89(4):780-5 - PubMed
  24. Orthopedics. 2017 Mar 1;40(2):e348-e351 - PubMed
  25. J Arthroplasty. 2005 Dec;20(8):1037-41 - PubMed
  26. J Arthroplasty. 2005 Apr;20(3):275-81 - PubMed
  27. Bone Joint J. 2017 Feb;99-B(2):199-203 - PubMed
  28. Hip Int. 2014 Sep-Oct;24(5):428-33 - PubMed
  29. Hip Int. 2011 Sep-Oct;21(5):627-9 - PubMed
  30. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1982 Sep;64(7):1063-7 - PubMed

Publication Types