0
Scientific Article   |    
Early Failure of Precoated Femoral Components in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty
Alvin Ong, MD; Kirk L. Wong, MD; Max Lai, BA; Jonathan P. Garino, MD; Marvin E. Steinberg, MD
View Disclosures and Other Information
Investigation performed at the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Alvin Ong, MD
11 Crestwood Avenue, Linwood, NJ 08221

Kirk L. Wong, MD
The Hand Center of San Antonio, 9150 Huebner Road, Suite 290, San Antonio, TX 78240

Max Lai, BA
Jonathan P. Garino, MD
Marvin E. Steinberg, MD
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Silverstein Pavilion, 2nd Floor, 3400 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104-4283. E-mail address for M.E. Steinberg: marvin.steinberg@uphs.upenn.edu

The authors did not receive grants or outside funding in support of their research or preparation of this manuscript. One or more of the authors received payments or other benefits or a commitment or agreement to provide such benefits from a commercial entity (Smith and Nephew Richards). In addition, a commercial entity (Zimmer) paid or directed, or agreed to pay or direct, benefits to a research fund, foundation, educational institution, or other charitable or nonprofit organization with which the authors are affiliated or associated.

The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery.  2002; 84:786-792 
5 Recommendations (Recommend) | 3 Comments | Saved by 3 Users Save Case

Abstract

Background: In an effort to decrease the rate of aseptic loosening, certain cemented femoral components were designed to have a roughened or textured surface with a methylmethacrylate precoating. Reports differ as to whether this step has increased or decreased the rate of failure. This study was designed to evaluate this issue.

Methods: Five hundred and fourteen hips treated with a cemented Harris Precoat stem (Zimmer, Warsaw, Indiana) were evaluated clinically and radiographically and compared with 254 hips treated with an uncoated Harris Design-2 stem (Howmedica, East Rutherford, New Jersey). Prostheses that had been removed at revision were examined. The cementing and surgical techniques were identical and the population demographics were similar for these two groups.

Results: The mean durations of follow-up were 8.4 and 13.5 years for the Precoat and uncoated Design-2 stems, respectively. At those times, at least forty-nine (9.5%) of the 514 Precoat components and at least ten (3.9%) of the 254 uncoated Design-2 stems had failed (p = 0.006). Five Precoat stems fractured, and no uncoated Design-2 stems fractured. Component failure was associated with use in young, active, heavy men with a diagnosis of avascular necrosis and generally with the use of smaller components. The cementing technique was satisfactory in the majority of the patients, and there were no qualitative differences in cementing technique between the hips that failed and those that did not. The mechanisms of failure of the Precoat prostheses included bone-cement loosening, focal osteolysis, stem fracture, and prosthesis-cement debonding. Fractures of smaller components occurred as a result of fatigue failure and were associated with good distal fixation but proximal stem loosening.

Conclusions: The rate of failure of roughened, precoated, cemented femoral components was considerably higher and occurred earlier than that of femoral components that were neither textured nor precoated with methylmethacrylate. Younger patients with avascular necrosis had a higher risk of failure; however, this factor alone did not completely explain the differences in outcome between these two components. The causes of aseptic loosening are multifactorial and may be related to component design and size as well as to precoating and surface finish.

Figures in this Article
    Aseptic loosening is the most common cause of stem failure after total hip arthroplasty performed with cement. It has been suggested that this is related in part to debonding of the femoral component from the cement 1-8 . Thus, it would seem that methods to improve this bond should decrease the incidence of loosening, and, with this goal, prostheses have been textured proximally, roughened, or precoated with methylmethacrylate. Laboratory studies and finite element analyses have confirmed that both precoating and roughening enhance the bonding of cement to the prosthesis and decrease the stresses at the prosthesis-cement interface 1,2,6,9-12 . Some clinical studies have demonstrated excellent seven to ten-year rates of survival of precoated prostheses 2,4,13-21 , whereas others have shown higher rates of loosening 1,3,12,22-28 .
    In 1987, we switched from the use of nontextured uncoated femoral stems (Harris Design-2; Howmedica, East Rutherford, New Jersey) to the use of precoated stems (Harris Precoat; Zimmer, Warsaw, Indiana), some of which were also textured proximally. Our initial follow-up suggested that this change in prostheses increased the rate of femoral failure. Accordingly, we sought to evaluate these findings more completely.
     
    Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
    +Fig. 1:Photograph of three femoral components removed at the time of revision for aseptic loosing. Left: A small-stem, short-neck Harris Design-2 stem. Center: A small-stem, short-neck Harris Precoat stem. Right: A small-stem, medium-neck Harris Precoat-Plus stem. Note that the precoating is no longer present on the two Precoat components.
     
    Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
    +Fig. 2:Photograph of a Precoat-Plus component removed from a large, young, active woman seven years after insertion. Loosening occurred at the bone-cement interface, and essentially all of the cement remained fixed to the prosthetic stem.
     
    Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
    +Fig. 3-A:Figs. 3-A and 3-B A 235-lb (106.6-kg), thirty-eight-year-old man had a left total hip replacement because of posttraumatic arthritis. Sudden hip pain developed three years and nine months later, and the patient was found to have a fractured prosthesis. Fig. 3-A Anteroposterior radiograph made after the prosthetic fracture. The fracture line is barely visible (black arrow). Loosening of the proximal part of the cement mantle together with debonding in zone 1 (white arrow) is seen.
     
    Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
    +Fig. 3-B:Photograph of the Precoat-Plus stem removed at the time of revision surgery. Note that the fracture occurred at the level of the laser etching on the anterior aspect of the distal part of the stem.
     
    Anchor for JumpAnchor for JumpTABLE I:  Rate of Failure by Diagnosis
    ProsthesisAvascular NecrosisDegenerative Joint DiseaseSignificance of Difference Between Diagnoses
    Design-211% (5/47)3% (3/105)p = 0.047
    Precoat16% (25/156)7% (14/195)p = 0.009
    Significance of difference between types of prosthesesp = 0.037p = 0.122
     
    Anchor for JumpAnchor for JumpTABLE II:  Types and Sizes of Failed Precoat Components
    Characteristic of ComponentNo. of Failures
    Size
      CDH  4}  67%
      Small29
      Medium12 (24%)
      Large4 (8%)
      Total49
    Neck length
      Short13
      Medium26
      Long  0
      Total39
    Type
      Precoat  5
      Precoat-Plus16
      Total 21
    We retrospectively reviewed the results of 768 primary total hip arthroplasties performed by one surgeon (M.E.S.) between 1984 and 1994. Two hundred and fifty-four uncoated Harris Design-2 components were inserted between 1984 and 1987. The mean interval between the surgery and the follow-up was 13.5 years (range, twelve to fifteen years). Five hundred and fourteen Harris Precoat components were inserted between 1987 and 1994. The mean interval from insertion to follow-up was 8.4 years (range, five to twelve years). The two series were consecutive, and only rarely were other components used during these time-periods.
    A posterolateral surgical approach was used in all patients. Second-generation cementing techniques (retrograde introduction of cement) with Simplex cement (Howmedica, London, England) were used. We did not use vacuum-mixing, centrifugation, or stem centralizers.
    Patients were seen at six weeks; at three, six, and twelve months; and yearly thereafter. Radiographs were made at three, six, and twelve months and every two years thereafter. Patients were evaluated clinically with Harris hip scores both preoperatively and postoperatively.
    We defined the result as a clinical failure when the hip underwent or was scheduled to undergo a surgical revision. Our definition of radiographic failure was a progressive radiolucent line of ≥2 mm in thickness completely surrounding the cement column, migration of the prosthesis, or fracture of the prosthesis. Prostheses that were removed were examined grossly to determine the mode of failure. The cementing technique was evaluated radiographically, shortly after the initial operation as well as at the time of failure, with use of the grading system described by Mulroy et al. 29 .

    Prostheses

    The Harris Design-2 stem is a cemented, nonmodular, collared component made of forged chromium-cobalt (Vitallium alloy; Howmedica) ( Fig. 1 ). It is neither textured nor precoated, and it has anterior and posterior grooves. It has a surface roughness of 33 Ra (microinch). The size array included small, medium, and large components that were 110 mm long and an extra-large component that was 165 mm long. Different head sizes were available, although 32-mm diameter heads were used exclusively in this series. Three neck lengths were available: short (28 mm), medium (35 mm), and long (40 mm).
    The Harris Precoat stem was designed as a successor to the Harris Design-2 stem by the same surgeon who designed the Harris Design-2 stem. It is a modular component with a Morse-type-taper neck and a medial collar that is smaller than the collar of the Harris Design-2 stem. It is made of forged high-strength cobalt-chromium-molybdenum (Zimaloy). Its geometry is similar but not identical to that of the Harris Design-2 stem. It is precoated proximally with methylmethacrylate at the factory. The earlier components, referred to as "Precoat," were not textured and had a surface roughness of 80 Ra (microinch). Some had anterior and posterior grooves, and some did not. Later components, referred to as "Precoat-Plus," were modified to include proximal texturing under the methacrylate coating, had a surface roughness of 87 Ra (microinch), and had no grooves 10 ( Fig. 1 ). The size array included CDH stems, 100, 150, and 200 mm long; small stems, 120 mm long; medium and large stems, 140 mm long; and extra-large stems, 170 mm long. All of the heads used in this series were 28 mm in diameter. Short, medium, and long necks were available in lengths ranging from 29 to 50 mm, depending on the size of the stem. Both Precoat and Precoat-Plus components were used in this series, although we could not determine the exact number of each type implanted.

    Femoral Components

    Eighty-five (17%) of the 514 Precoat components and sixty-two (24%) of the 254 Design-2 components were lost to follow-up, leaving 429 Precoat and 192 Design-2 prostheses available for evaluation. The mean time since the arthroplasties with the Precoat stems was 8.4 years (range, five to twelve years), and the mean time since the arthroplasties with the Design-2 stems was 13.5 years (range, twelve to fifteen years).
    At least forty-nine (9.5%) of the 514 Precoat stems failed at a mean of 5.7 years (range, two to eleven years). Forty-three were revised, and six were radiographically loose but had not yet been revised. Five stems fractured. At least ten (3.9%) of the 254 Design-2 stems failed at a mean of 9.9 years (range, eight to thirteen years). Eight were revised, and two were loose but had not yet been revised. No stem fractured. The difference in the failure rate between the Precoat and Design-2 stems was significant (p = 0.006).
    The rates of failure of both components were greater in patients with avascular necrosis than they were in patients with degenerative arthritis, and the rate of failure of the Precoat components was greater than that of the Design-2 components in patients with either diagnosis ( Table I ).

    Acetabular Components

    In the combined series, seventeen (2.2%) of the 768 acetabular components failed. Thirteen of the failed cups were cemented M�ller all-polyethylene components, all used with Design-2 stems. In addition, one Optifix cup (Smith and Nephew Orthopaedics, Memphis, Tennessee) and three Ti-Bac II cups (Zimmer), used with Precoat stems, failed. None of the Harris-Galante-1 porous acetabular components, all used with Precoat stems, failed.

    Demographic Factors

    The age and gender of the patients with Precoat and Design-2 components were similar. The mean age of the patients with a Precoat component was fifty-five years, and the female-to-male ratio was 1.5 to 1. The mean age of the patients with a Design-2 component was fifty-nine years, and the female-to-male ratio was 1.4 to 1. With a mean age of 54.3 years (range, thirty-one to seventy-one years), the patients with a failed Design-2 component were slightly younger than the entire group of patients treated with that stem. The mean age of the patients with a failed Precoat component was 42.3 years (range, twenty-one to seventy-eight years), which was significantly younger than the mean age of the Precoat group as a whole (p = 0.0261). Failures were more common in men than in women. One-half (five) of the ten failed Design-2 stems and 53% (twenty-six) of the forty-nine failed Precoat stems were in men, although only 42% (sixty-five) of the 156 patients treated with a Design-2 stem were men and only 40% (125) of the 313 treated with a Precoat stem were men.
    The majority of patients in the series had a diagnosis of either avascular necrosis or osteoarthrosis. The others had a diagnosis of developmental dysplasia of the hip (thirty-one hips) or had miscellaneous diagnoses (eighty-seven hips). Patients with a Precoat stem had a higher rate of avascular necrosis and a somewhat lower rate of degenerative joint disease than did those with a Design-2 stem (see Appendix).

    Characteristics of Failed Precoat Components

    Thirty-three (67%) of the forty-nine failed Precoat stems were the smallest components ( Table II ). Failure was not associated with a greater neck length or with either the earlier or the later component design (Precoat or Precoat-Plus).

    Cementing Technique

    The cementing technique for thirty-eight failed components was retrospectively evaluated on radiographs made after the initial surgical procedure and was compared with that of thirty-three surviving components chosen at random. The cementing technique was graded as A or B in the majority of hips, and no difference in cementing technique was seen between those that eventually failed and those that did not, although a somewhat greater number of failed hips had a C2 cementing grade (see Appendix).
    Radiographs made just prior to revision of forty-one failed prostheses were reviewed, and the failure was graded as one of four types (see Appendix). The majority showed extensive bone-cement radiolucency, often with subsidence of the prosthesis and fracture of the cement. Only rarely was there evidence of debonding alone, although it was occasionally seen in conjunction with bone-cement demarcation. When present, the debonding invariably originated in Gruen 30 zone 1. In only four instances was there evidence of focal osteolysis occurring before gross loosening or debonding.
    A somewhat different picture was seen on gross examination of thirty-four retrieved stems. Twenty had partial or complete debonding of the cement, although this was not obvious from the radiographs alone. Nine prostheses had little or no debonding and had been extracted with most or all of the cement mantle attached ( Fig. 2 ). The prostheses with partial debonding had separation of the cement proximally while the distal cement remained firmly attached; loosening had occurred at the distal part of the bone-cement interface.
    Five stems fractured. The findings were characteristic, with the distal portion of the stem firmly fixed within the cement column and the removal performed with some difficulty. The fracture line was seen passing through one of the laser etchings on the anterior aspect of the stem, usually at or below the junction of the middle and distal one-thirds. The proximal portion of the prosthesis was grossly loose and was completely devoid of cement. In addition, the remaining proximal cement column was usually loosened from the bone and fragmented. Varying amounts of osteolysis were present. The fracture pattern was consistent with fatigue failure ( Figs. 3-A and 3-B ). Fractures occurred in both textured and non-textured components. All five patients with a fractured prosthesis were young, heavy, and active. All fractures were in the left hip, and four of the five were of a small prosthesis. Three of the five were patients with avascular necrosis (see Appendix).
    Initially, some clinical studies of precoated femoral components demonstrated excellent results 2,4,13-21 and others showed a higher incidence of loosening 3,22-28,31,32 . Gardiner and Hozack, in 1994, reported aseptic loosening at the bone-cement interface of seventeen cemented precoated or roughened implants at a mean of thirty-seven months 24 . They speculated that improvement of the cement-prosthesis bond caused stresses to be transferred to the bone-cement interface, promoting early failure at this site. Studies that compared the polished and matte-finish versions of the Exeter prosthesis revealed that roughening of the surface increased the incidence of failure 25,27,28,31,32 . When loosening occurred, rougher surfaces generated more cement debris than smooth surfaces did, a situation that could lead to bone lysis and stem loosening 4,10,33 . Thus, a number of investigators have concluded that an enhanced cement-prosthesis bond may actually be deleterious rather than helpful with regard to the long-term survival of the stem 1,2-4,10,12,22-28,33 .
    In 1996, Woolson and Haber reported a 5% rate (six of 121) of loosening of the Harris Precoat femoral component at six years 34 . Ten additional hips had femoral osteolysis, and two components fractured. In 1997, Woolson et al. reported that ten of 654 Precoat or Precoat-Plus stems fractured 35 . Six were in patients who weighed more than 80 kg. All fractures occurred at the site of laser etching on the stem surface, and nine of the ten were in the left hip, where the etching was on the anterior or tensile aspect of the stem. Scanning electron microscopy indicated that the metal had undergone localized melting and weakening from the high temperature of the laser beam.
    Dowd et al., in 1998, reported on a series of 154 total hip arthroplasties in which a precoated femoral component was used 3 . Twenty-three (15%) of these components failed, with an average time to revision of 3.9 years. The most common mechanism of failure was loosening at the bone-cement interface with debonding of the stem as a later finding. The authors concluded that the failure was related to a thin cement mantle, which they attributed to use of an undersized rasp, lack of centralization, and vacuum-mixed cement.
    The Centralign precoated hip prosthesis (Zimmer) was designed to improve on certain aspects of the earlier Precoat and Precoat-Plus prostheses. The surface roughness of these components was similar, but the Centralign had precoating applied both proximally and distally over areas of macrotexturing and had proximal and distal centralizers. Recently, Sylvain et al. 7 reported their results with eighty-four Centralign components. Although radiographs indicated excellent cementing technique, the rate of failure was 12% at an average of thirty-one months after insertion.
    Although several authors have identified poor cementing technique, a thin cement mantle, and the use of vacuum mixing as possible causes of failure 3,9,11,18,29,36-39 , the literature does not uniformly support these conclusions. Good-to-excellent results with the Precoat prosthesis have been reported by authors who routinely used vacuum mixing 2 as well as by those who used neither vacuum mixing nor centrifugation 13 . In addition, a high percentage of good and excellent clinical results with a low failure rate has been reported in series in which many hips were found to have a thin, and supposedly poor, cement mantle 2,13,15,21,31,34 .
    In the present study, we found little difference in cementing technique between the Precoat hips that failed and those that did not. Although a grade of C2 was more common in the hips that failed, the cementing technique was graded A or B in the majority of hips in both groups. We also found a low incidence of failure of older Harris Design-2 prostheses that had been fixed with a similar second-generation cementing technique, with no stem centralization or porosity reduction 40,41 . Of the ten hips that failed, four had grade-A cementing technique; four, B; and two, C2.
    The demographic characteristics of the patient population in the present study differed considerably from those in most others 2,17,36,38 . Since our medical center has an active osteonecrosis program, a large number of patients required hip replacement because of osteonecrosis. These patients were generally younger and more active than patients with degenerative joint disease. As in previous studies 28,36 , we found a higher failure rate in the patients with osteonecrosis. The percentage of patients with osteonecrosis was higher in the group treated with the Precoat stem than it was in the group treated with the Design-2 stem, and this accounted in part for the higher overall rate of failure of the Precoat components. However, the failure rate of the Precoat prostheses was also considerably higher than that of the Design-2 components in patients with degenerative arthritis ( Table I ).
    There are probably multiple factors responsible for prosthetic failure in patients with osteonecrosis, including concomitant disease, use of alcohol and corticosteroids, metabolic alterations in bone, younger age, and greater activity. These patients often have thicker femoral cortices and smaller medullary canals than do patients with degenerative arthritis, and therefore smaller stems with thinner cement mantles are often required.
    Some authors have indicated that failure of a Precoat prosthesis begins with cement debonding 35 , whereas others have found loosening at the bone-cement interface to be the primary cause of failure 3 . In our series, four separate failure modes were noted: loosening at the bone-cement interface, cement-stem debonding, early focal osteolysis, and stem fracture. On radiographic examination, the majority of the failures appeared to have been due to loosening at the bone-cement interface; however, on gross examination most components also showed evidence of cement-stem debonding.
    Thirty-three (67%) of the forty-nine prostheses that failed were the smallest sizes (small or CDH design). Of the twenty-one prostheses whose model could be ascertained, five were Precoat and sixteen were Precoat-Plus.
    Patients who sustained a fracture of the component were young, heavy, and quite active. Four of the fractured prostheses were small and one was medium, and all were in the left hip. The mode of fracture was similar to that described by others 35 . The fracture line passed through a laser etching on the anterior aspect of the distal portion of the stem and appeared to be due to fatigue failure. The manufacturer has since modified the technique for marking prostheses. All fractures occurred in prostheses that remained well fixed distally but had loosened proximally.
    Although the present study focused primarily on the rate, mode, and causes of failure of the Harris Precoat stem, certain comparisons were made with the Harris Design-2 prosthesis, which was used routinely at our institution before the Precoat stem was employed. All of the surgical procedures, with either the Harris Design-2 or the Harris Precoat component, were performed by one surgeon. The surgical approach, cementing technique, and postoperative care were similar for the two groups. Second-generation cementing was used without centralizers or porosity reduction. The age and gender of the patients were similar between the two groups, although there was a higher prevalence of avascular necrosis in the group treated with the Precoat stem. However, the rate of failure of the Precoat prosthesis was higher than that of the Design-2 stem both in patients with avascular necrosis and in those with degenerative arthritis.
    The rate of failure of a modern precoated femoral component was found to be higher than one would have anticipated and stands in marked contrast to the failure rate of an older prosthesis with nearly twice the duration of follow-up. The causes of failure are multifactorial, but it would appear that an important element in the present series was the design and surface treatment of the femoral component, including the increased surface roughness and precoating with methylmethacrylate.
    Tables presenting diagnostic categories for all hips and those that failed, detailed radiographic findings, and the demographic characteristics of the patients with a fracture of the Precoat stem are available with the electronic versions of this article, on our web site at www.ejbjs.org (go to the article citation and click on "Supplementary Material") and on our quarterly CD-ROM (call our subscription department, at 781-449-9780, to order the CD-ROM).
    Barrack RL. Early failure of modern cemented stems. J Arthroplasty,2000;15: 1036-50.. 151036  2000  [PubMed]
     
    Brown EC 3rd,Lachiewicz PF. Precoated femoral component in total hip arthroplasty. Results of 5- to 9-year followup. Clin Orthop,1999;364: 153-9.. 364153  1999  [PubMed]
     
    Dowd JE, Cha CW, Trakru S, Kim SY, Yang IH,Rubash HE. Failure of total hip arthroplasty with a precoated prosthesis. 4- to 11-year results. Clin Orthop,1998;355: 123-36.. 355123  1998  [PubMed]
     
    Harrington M, O'Connor DO, Lozynsky AJ, Kovach I,Harris WH. Factors associated with the stability of cemented femoral stems. Harvard Orthop J,1999;1: 53-5.. 153  1999 
     
    Jasty M, Maloney WJ, Bragdon CR, O'Connor DO, Haire T,Harris WH. The initiation of failure in cemented femoral components of hip arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Br,1991;73: 551-8.. 73551  1991  [PubMed]
     
    Raab S, Ahmed AM,Provan JW. Thin film PMMA precoating for improved implant bone-cement fixation. J Biomed Mater Res,1982;16: 679-704.. 16679  1982  [PubMed]
     
    Sylvain GM, Kassab S, Coutts R,Santore R. Early failure of a roughened surface, precoated femoral component in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty,2001;16: 141-8.. 16141  2001  [PubMed]
     
    Verdonschot N,Huiskes R. Cement debonding process of total hip arthroplasty stems. Clin Orthop,1997;336: 297-307.. 336297  1997  [PubMed]
     
    Chang PB, Mann KA,Bartel DL. Cemented femoral stem performance. Effects of proximal bonding, geometry, and neck length. Clin Orthop,1998;355: 57-69.. 35557  1998  [PubMed]
     
    Crowninshield RD, Jennings JD, Laurent ML,Maloney WJ. Cemented femoral component surface finish mechanics. Clin Orthop,1998;355: 90-102.. 35590  1998  [PubMed]
     
    Harris WH. Is it advantageous to strengthen the cement-metal interface and use a collar for cemented femoral components of total hip replacements?. Clin Orthop,1992;285: 67-72.. 28567  1992  [PubMed]
     
    Ling RS. The use of a collar and precoating on cemented femoral stems is unnecessary and detrimental. Clin Orthop,1992;285: 73-83.. 28573  1992  [PubMed]
     
    Berger RA, Kull LR, Rosenberg AG,Galante JO. Hybrid total hip arthroplasty: 7- to 10-year results. Clin Orthop,1996;333: 134-46.. 333134  1996  [PubMed]
     
    Cannestra VP, Berger RA, Quigley LR, Jacobs JJ, Rosenberg AG,Galante JO. Hybrid total hip arthroplasty with a precoated offset stem. Four to nine-year results. J Bone Joint Surg Am,2000;82: 1291-9.. 821291  2000  [PubMed]
     
    Clohisy JC,Harris WH. Primary hybrid total hip replacement, performed with insertion of the acetabular component without cement and a precoat femoral component with cement. An average ten-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am,1999;81: 247-55.. 81247  1999  [PubMed]
     
    Goetz DD, Smith EJ,Harris WH. The prevalence of femoral osteolysis associated with components inserted with or without cement in total hip replacements. A retrospective matched-pair series. J Bone Joint Surg Am,1994;76: 1121-9.. 761121  1994  [PubMed]
     
    Goldberg VM, Ninomiya J, Kelly G,Kraay M. Hybrid total hip arthroplasty: a 7- to 11-year followup. Clin Orthop,1996;333: 147-54.. 333147  1996  [PubMed]
     
    Harris WH. Hybrid total hip replacement: rationale and intermediate clinical results. Clin Orthop,1996;333: 155-64.. 333155  1996  [PubMed]
     
    Harris WH. Long-term results of cemented femoral stems with roughened precoated surfaces. Clin Orthop,1998;355: 137-43.. 355137  1998  [PubMed]
     
    Oishi CS, Walker RH,Colwell CW Jr. The femoral component in total hip arthroplasty. Six to eight-year follow-up of one hundred consecutive patients after use of a third-generation cementing technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am,1994;76: 1130-6.. 761130  1994  [PubMed]
     
    Schmalzried TP,Harris WH. Hybrid total hip replacement. A 6.5-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Br,1993;75: 608-15.. 75608  1993  [PubMed]
     
    Collis DK,Mohler CG. Loosening rates and bone lysis with rough finished and polished stems. Clin Orthop,1998;355: 113-22.. 355113  1998  [PubMed]
     
    Duffy G, Murgatoglu OK, Harris WH. Debonding cemented femoral stems with proximal macrotexturing and the generation of cement debris: an in vitro investigation and retrieval analysis. From the Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting of the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons; 2000 Nov 3-5; Dallas, TX. p 30. 
     
    Gardiner RC,Hozack WJ. Failure of the cement-bone interface. A consequence of strengthening the cement-prosthesis interface?. J Bone Joint Surg Br,1994;76: 49-52.. 7649  1994  [PubMed]
     
    Howie DW, Middleton RG,Costi K. Loosening of matt and polished cemented femoral stems. J Bone Joint Surg Br,1998;80: 573-6.. 80573  1998  [PubMed]
     
    Johnston T, Callaghan JJ, Johnston RC, Goetz DD, Sullivan P. Is a polished surface finish optimal for a collared cemented prosthesis? From the Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting of the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons; 2000 Nov 3-5; Dallas, TX. p 28. 
     
    Mohler CG, Callaghan JJ, Collis DK,Johnston RC. Early loosening of the femoral component at the cement-prosthesis interface after total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am,1995;77: 1315-22.. 771315  1995  [PubMed]
     
    Malchau H, Herberts P. Prognosis of total hip replacement. Gothenburg, Sweden: National Hip Arthroplasty Register; 1996. p 1-12. 
     
    Mulroy WF, Estok DM,Harris WH. Total hip arthroplasty with use of so-called second-generation cementing techniques. A fifteen-year-average follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am,1995;77: 1845-52.. 771845  1995  [PubMed]
     
    Gruen TA, McNeice GM,Amstutz HC. "Modes of failure" of cemented stem-type femoral components. A radiographic analysis of loosening. Clin Orthop,1979;141: 17-27.. 14117  1979  [PubMed]
     
    Middleton RG, Howie DW, Costi K,Sharpe P. Effects of design changes on cemented tapered femoral stem fixation. Clin Orthop,1998;355: 47-56.. 35547  1998  [PubMed]
     
    Sporer SM, Callaghan JJ, Olejniczak JP, Goetz DD,Johnston RC. The effects of surface roughness and polymethylmethacrylate precoating on the radiographic and clinical results of the Iowa hip prosthesis. A study of patients less than fifty years old. J Bone Joint Surg Am,1999;81: 481-92.. 81481  1999  [PubMed]
     
    Schmalzried TP, Zahiri CA,Woolson ST. The significance of stem-cement loosening of grit-blasted femoral components. Orthopedics,2000;23: 1157-64.. 231157  2000  [PubMed]
     
    Woolson ST,Haber DF. Primary total hip replacement with insertion of an acetabular component without cement and a femoral component with cement. Follow-up study at an average of six years. J Bone Joint Surg Am,1996;78: 698-705.. 78698  1996  [PubMed]
     
    Woolson ST, Milbauer JP, Bobyn JD, Yue S,Maloney WJ. Fatigue fracture of a forged cobalt-chromium-molybdenum femoral component inserted with cement. A report of ten cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am,1997;79: 1842-8.. 791842  1997  [PubMed]
     
    Barrack RL, Mulroy RD Jr,Harris WH. Improved cementing techniques and femoral component loosening in young patients with hip arthroplasty. A 12-year radiographic review. J Bone Joint Surg Br,1992;74: 385-9.. 74385  1992  [PubMed]
     
    Kawate K, Maloney WJ, Bragdon CR, Biggs SA, Jasty M,Harris WH. Importance of a thin cement mantle. Autopsy studies of eight hips. Clin Orthop,1998;355: 70-6.. 35570  1998  [PubMed]
     
    Kawate K, Ohmura T, Hiyoshi N, Natsume Y, Teranishi T,Tamai S. Thin cement mantle and osteolysis with a precoated stem. Clin Orthop,1999;365: 124-9.. 365124  1999  [PubMed]
     
    Mulroy RD Jr,Harris WH. The effect of improved cementing techniques on component loosening in total hip replacement. An 11-year radiographic review. J Bone Joint Surg Br,1990;72: 757-60.. 72757  1990  [PubMed]
     
    Bourne RB, Rorabeck CH, Skutek M, Mikkelsen S, Winemaker M,Robertson D. The Harris Design-2 total hip replacement fixed with so-called second-generation cementing techniques. A ten to fifteen-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am,1998;80: 1775-80.. 801775  1998  [PubMed]
     
    Sanchez-Soteli J, Harmsen WS, Berry DJ. Long-term results of a collared matte-finished femoral component fixed with modern cementing techniques. A fifteen-year-median follow-up study. From the Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting of the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons; 2000 Nov 3-5; Dallas, TX. p 29. 
     

    Submit a comment

    Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
    +Fig. 1:Photograph of three femoral components removed at the time of revision for aseptic loosing. Left: A small-stem, short-neck Harris Design-2 stem. Center: A small-stem, short-neck Harris Precoat stem. Right: A small-stem, medium-neck Harris Precoat-Plus stem. Note that the precoating is no longer present on the two Precoat components.
    Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
    +Fig. 2:Photograph of a Precoat-Plus component removed from a large, young, active woman seven years after insertion. Loosening occurred at the bone-cement interface, and essentially all of the cement remained fixed to the prosthetic stem.
    Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
    +Fig. 3-A:Figs. 3-A and 3-B A 235-lb (106.6-kg), thirty-eight-year-old man had a left total hip replacement because of posttraumatic arthritis. Sudden hip pain developed three years and nine months later, and the patient was found to have a fractured prosthesis. Fig. 3-A Anteroposterior radiograph made after the prosthetic fracture. The fracture line is barely visible (black arrow). Loosening of the proximal part of the cement mantle together with debonding in zone 1 (white arrow) is seen.
    Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
    +Fig. 3-B:Photograph of the Precoat-Plus stem removed at the time of revision surgery. Note that the fracture occurred at the level of the laser etching on the anterior aspect of the distal part of the stem.
    Anchor for JumpAnchor for JumpTABLE I:  Rate of Failure by Diagnosis
    ProsthesisAvascular NecrosisDegenerative Joint DiseaseSignificance of Difference Between Diagnoses
    Design-211% (5/47)3% (3/105)p = 0.047
    Precoat16% (25/156)7% (14/195)p = 0.009
    Significance of difference between types of prosthesesp = 0.037p = 0.122
    Anchor for JumpAnchor for JumpTABLE II:  Types and Sizes of Failed Precoat Components
    Characteristic of ComponentNo. of Failures
    Size
      CDH  4}  67%
      Small29
      Medium12 (24%)
      Large4 (8%)
      Total49
    Neck length
      Short13
      Medium26
      Long  0
      Total39
    Type
      Precoat  5
      Precoat-Plus16
      Total 21
    Barrack RL. Early failure of modern cemented stems. J Arthroplasty,2000;15: 1036-50.. 151036  2000  [PubMed]
     
    Brown EC 3rd,Lachiewicz PF. Precoated femoral component in total hip arthroplasty. Results of 5- to 9-year followup. Clin Orthop,1999;364: 153-9.. 364153  1999  [PubMed]
     
    Dowd JE, Cha CW, Trakru S, Kim SY, Yang IH,Rubash HE. Failure of total hip arthroplasty with a precoated prosthesis. 4- to 11-year results. Clin Orthop,1998;355: 123-36.. 355123  1998  [PubMed]
     
    Harrington M, O'Connor DO, Lozynsky AJ, Kovach I,Harris WH. Factors associated with the stability of cemented femoral stems. Harvard Orthop J,1999;1: 53-5.. 153  1999 
     
    Jasty M, Maloney WJ, Bragdon CR, O'Connor DO, Haire T,Harris WH. The initiation of failure in cemented femoral components of hip arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Br,1991;73: 551-8.. 73551  1991  [PubMed]
     
    Raab S, Ahmed AM,Provan JW. Thin film PMMA precoating for improved implant bone-cement fixation. J Biomed Mater Res,1982;16: 679-704.. 16679  1982  [PubMed]
     
    Sylvain GM, Kassab S, Coutts R,Santore R. Early failure of a roughened surface, precoated femoral component in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty,2001;16: 141-8.. 16141  2001  [PubMed]
     
    Verdonschot N,Huiskes R. Cement debonding process of total hip arthroplasty stems. Clin Orthop,1997;336: 297-307.. 336297  1997  [PubMed]
     
    Chang PB, Mann KA,Bartel DL. Cemented femoral stem performance. Effects of proximal bonding, geometry, and neck length. Clin Orthop,1998;355: 57-69.. 35557  1998  [PubMed]
     
    Crowninshield RD, Jennings JD, Laurent ML,Maloney WJ. Cemented femoral component surface finish mechanics. Clin Orthop,1998;355: 90-102.. 35590  1998  [PubMed]
     
    Harris WH. Is it advantageous to strengthen the cement-metal interface and use a collar for cemented femoral components of total hip replacements?. Clin Orthop,1992;285: 67-72.. 28567  1992  [PubMed]
     
    Ling RS. The use of a collar and precoating on cemented femoral stems is unnecessary and detrimental. Clin Orthop,1992;285: 73-83.. 28573  1992  [PubMed]
     
    Berger RA, Kull LR, Rosenberg AG,Galante JO. Hybrid total hip arthroplasty: 7- to 10-year results. Clin Orthop,1996;333: 134-46.. 333134  1996  [PubMed]
     
    Cannestra VP, Berger RA, Quigley LR, Jacobs JJ, Rosenberg AG,Galante JO. Hybrid total hip arthroplasty with a precoated offset stem. Four to nine-year results. J Bone Joint Surg Am,2000;82: 1291-9.. 821291  2000  [PubMed]
     
    Clohisy JC,Harris WH. Primary hybrid total hip replacement, performed with insertion of the acetabular component without cement and a precoat femoral component with cement. An average ten-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am,1999;81: 247-55.. 81247  1999  [PubMed]
     
    Goetz DD, Smith EJ,Harris WH. The prevalence of femoral osteolysis associated with components inserted with or without cement in total hip replacements. A retrospective matched-pair series. J Bone Joint Surg Am,1994;76: 1121-9.. 761121  1994  [PubMed]
     
    Goldberg VM, Ninomiya J, Kelly G,Kraay M. Hybrid total hip arthroplasty: a 7- to 11-year followup. Clin Orthop,1996;333: 147-54.. 333147  1996  [PubMed]
     
    Harris WH. Hybrid total hip replacement: rationale and intermediate clinical results. Clin Orthop,1996;333: 155-64.. 333155  1996  [PubMed]
     
    Harris WH. Long-term results of cemented femoral stems with roughened precoated surfaces. Clin Orthop,1998;355: 137-43.. 355137  1998  [PubMed]
     
    Oishi CS, Walker RH,Colwell CW Jr. The femoral component in total hip arthroplasty. Six to eight-year follow-up of one hundred consecutive patients after use of a third-generation cementing technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am,1994;76: 1130-6.. 761130  1994  [PubMed]
     
    Schmalzried TP,Harris WH. Hybrid total hip replacement. A 6.5-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Br,1993;75: 608-15.. 75608  1993  [PubMed]
     
    Collis DK,Mohler CG. Loosening rates and bone lysis with rough finished and polished stems. Clin Orthop,1998;355: 113-22.. 355113  1998  [PubMed]
     
    Duffy G, Murgatoglu OK, Harris WH. Debonding cemented femoral stems with proximal macrotexturing and the generation of cement debris: an in vitro investigation and retrieval analysis. From the Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting of the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons; 2000 Nov 3-5; Dallas, TX. p 30. 
     
    Gardiner RC,Hozack WJ. Failure of the cement-bone interface. A consequence of strengthening the cement-prosthesis interface?. J Bone Joint Surg Br,1994;76: 49-52.. 7649  1994  [PubMed]
     
    Howie DW, Middleton RG,Costi K. Loosening of matt and polished cemented femoral stems. J Bone Joint Surg Br,1998;80: 573-6.. 80573  1998  [PubMed]
     
    Johnston T, Callaghan JJ, Johnston RC, Goetz DD, Sullivan P. Is a polished surface finish optimal for a collared cemented prosthesis? From the Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting of the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons; 2000 Nov 3-5; Dallas, TX. p 28. 
     
    Mohler CG, Callaghan JJ, Collis DK,Johnston RC. Early loosening of the femoral component at the cement-prosthesis interface after total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am,1995;77: 1315-22.. 771315  1995  [PubMed]
     
    Malchau H, Herberts P. Prognosis of total hip replacement. Gothenburg, Sweden: National Hip Arthroplasty Register; 1996. p 1-12. 
     
    Mulroy WF, Estok DM,Harris WH. Total hip arthroplasty with use of so-called second-generation cementing techniques. A fifteen-year-average follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am,1995;77: 1845-52.. 771845  1995  [PubMed]
     
    Gruen TA, McNeice GM,Amstutz HC. "Modes of failure" of cemented stem-type femoral components. A radiographic analysis of loosening. Clin Orthop,1979;141: 17-27.. 14117  1979  [PubMed]
     
    Middleton RG, Howie DW, Costi K,Sharpe P. Effects of design changes on cemented tapered femoral stem fixation. Clin Orthop,1998;355: 47-56.. 35547  1998  [PubMed]
     
    Sporer SM, Callaghan JJ, Olejniczak JP, Goetz DD,Johnston RC. The effects of surface roughness and polymethylmethacrylate precoating on the radiographic and clinical results of the Iowa hip prosthesis. A study of patients less than fifty years old. J Bone Joint Surg Am,1999;81: 481-92.. 81481  1999  [PubMed]
     
    Schmalzried TP, Zahiri CA,Woolson ST. The significance of stem-cement loosening of grit-blasted femoral components. Orthopedics,2000;23: 1157-64.. 231157  2000  [PubMed]
     
    Woolson ST,Haber DF. Primary total hip replacement with insertion of an acetabular component without cement and a femoral component with cement. Follow-up study at an average of six years. J Bone Joint Surg Am,1996;78: 698-705.. 78698  1996  [PubMed]
     
    Woolson ST, Milbauer JP, Bobyn JD, Yue S,Maloney WJ. Fatigue fracture of a forged cobalt-chromium-molybdenum femoral component inserted with cement. A report of ten cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am,1997;79: 1842-8.. 791842  1997  [PubMed]
     
    Barrack RL, Mulroy RD Jr,Harris WH. Improved cementing techniques and femoral component loosening in young patients with hip arthroplasty. A 12-year radiographic review. J Bone Joint Surg Br,1992;74: 385-9.. 74385  1992  [PubMed]
     
    Kawate K, Maloney WJ, Bragdon CR, Biggs SA, Jasty M,Harris WH. Importance of a thin cement mantle. Autopsy studies of eight hips. Clin Orthop,1998;355: 70-6.. 35570  1998  [PubMed]
     
    Kawate K, Ohmura T, Hiyoshi N, Natsume Y, Teranishi T,Tamai S. Thin cement mantle and osteolysis with a precoated stem. Clin Orthop,1999;365: 124-9.. 365124  1999  [PubMed]
     
    Mulroy RD Jr,Harris WH. The effect of improved cementing techniques on component loosening in total hip replacement. An 11-year radiographic review. J Bone Joint Surg Br,1990;72: 757-60.. 72757  1990  [PubMed]
     
    Bourne RB, Rorabeck CH, Skutek M, Mikkelsen S, Winemaker M,Robertson D. The Harris Design-2 total hip replacement fixed with so-called second-generation cementing techniques. A ten to fifteen-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am,1998;80: 1775-80.. 801775  1998  [PubMed]
     
    Sanchez-Soteli J, Harmsen WS, Berry DJ. Long-term results of a collared matte-finished femoral component fixed with modern cementing techniques. A fifteen-year-median follow-up study. From the Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting of the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons; 2000 Nov 3-5; Dallas, TX. p 29. 
     
    Accreditation Statement
    These activities have been planned and implemented in accordance with the Essential Areas and policies of the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) through the joint sponsorship of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons is accredited by the ACCME to provide continuing medical education for physicians.
    CME Activities Associated with This Article
    Submit a Comment
    Please read the other comments before you post yours. Contributors must reveal any conflict of interest.
    Comments are moderated and will appear on the site at the discretion of JBJS editorial staff.

    * = Required Field
    (if multiple authors, separate names by comma)
    Example: John Doe




    Related Articles
    Related Cases
    Related Content
    Topic Collections
    Related Audio and Videos
    PubMed Articles
    Clinical Trials
    Readers of This Also Read...
    jbjs jobs
    05/18/2012
    NH - Concord Orthopaedics
    03/07/2012
    CA - SOAR Medical Group
    05/18/2012
    NY - SUNY-Downstate Medical Center
    03/22/2012
    IL - Midwest Orthopaedics at Rush