Cement Beads at First Stage Improve Femoral Endosteal Recovery: A Comparative Study of Revision and Primary Taper Slip Femoral Components

Abstract

Debate continues about the merits of nonarticulating cement beads versus articulating cement spacers. This unit believes beads promote femoral endosteal bone regeneration producing an environment conducive to cementing at second stage. This article assesses the femoral cement mantle of matched primary and revision cemented taper slip stems (CTSSs). We performed a retrospective cohort study of all second stage CTSSs then selected a randomized group from primary joints from the arthroplasty database. The two revision hip fellows assessed the initial postop radiograph for femoral cement quality using the Barrack grading system. Results were analyzed using SPSS for interobserver reliability and quality of cementing. A total of 105 patients were identified as having received a CTSS at second stage and 105 primaries randomly selected. The average age was 81 years in the revision group and 79 years in the primary group. The revision group contained 54% female patients and the primary group contained 56%. In the primary group 73% on anteroposterior (AP) were grade A and 65% on lateral. In the revision group 77% on AP were grade A and 76% on the lateral. The interclass correlation coefficient showed good correlation between assessors. Only the lateral cementing demonstrated a significant difference between groups in favor of the revision group. This article suggests that the use of beads at first stage followed by a cemented femoral prosthesis at second stage will have equal to, or slightly better cementing than those receiving a primary hip replacement. We believe that cement can have additional benefits in second stage revisions such as further delivery of antibiotics into the effective joint space. As revision surgeons we aim to foster as many options as possible for the subsequent reconstruction. The major limitation of this study is the low number of articulating spacers used in this institution.

Keywords

revision THR - infection - femoral endosteal recovery

Publication History

Received: 11 February 2022

Accepted: 10 August 2022

Article published online:
01 November 2022

• References

• 1 Jiranek WA, Waligora AC, Hess SR, Golladay GL. Surgical treatment of prosthetic joint infections of the hip and knee: changing paradigms?. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30 (06) 912-918
• 2 Marczak D, Synder M, Sibiński M, Polguj M, Dudka J, Kowalczewski J. Two stage revision hip arthroplasty in periprosthetic joint infection. Comparison study: with or without the use of a spacer. Int Orthop 2017; 41 (11) 2253-2258
• 3 Senthi S, Munro JT, Pitto RP. Infection in total hip replacement: meta-analysis. Int Orthop 2011; 35 (02) 253-260 (SICOT)
• 4 Rava A, Bruzzone M, Cottino U, Enrietti E, Rossi R. Hip spacers in two stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection: a literature review. Joints 2019; 7 (02) 56-63
• 5 Atıcı T, Şahin N, Çavun S, Özakin C, Kaleli T. Antibiotic release and antibacterial efficacy in cement spacers and cement beads impregnated with different techniques: in vitro study. Eklem Hastalik Cerrahisi 2018; 29 (02) 71-78
• 6 Janssen DM, Geurts JA, Jütten LM, Walenkamp GH. 2-stage revision of 120 deep infected hip and knee prostheses using gentamicin-PMMA beads. Acta Orthop 2016; 87 (04) 324-332
• 7 Kallala R, Harris WE, Ibrahim M, Dipane M, McPherson E. Use of Stimulan absorbable calcium sulphate beads in revision lower limb arthroplasty: safety profile and complication rates. Bone Joint Res 2018; 7 (10) 570-579
• 8 Anagnostakos K. Therapeutic use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement in the treatment of hip and knee joint infections. J Bone Jt Infect 2017; 2 (01) 29-37
• 9 van Vugt TAG, Arts JJ, Geurts JAP. Antibiotic-loaded polymethylmethacrylate beads and spacers in treatment of orthopedic infections and the role of biofilm formation. Front Microbiol 2019; 10: 1626
• 10 Burastero G, Basso M, Carrega G. et al. Acetabular spacers in 2-stage hip revision: is it worth it? A single-centre retrospective study. Hip Int 2017; 27 (02) 187-1926
• 11 Citak M, Masri BA, Springer B, Argenson J-N, Kendoff DO. Are preformed articulating spacers superior to surgeon-made articulating spacers in the treatment of PJI in THA? A literature review. Open Orthop J 2015; 9: 255-261
• 12 Yang FS, Lu Y-D, Wu C-T, Blevins K, Lee MS, Kuo F-C. Mechanical failure of articulating polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) spacers in two-stage revision hip arthroplasty: the risk factors and the impact on interim function. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2019; 20 (01) 372
• 13 Barreira P, Leite P, Neves P, Soares D, Sousa R. Preventing mechanical complications of hip spacer implantation: technical tips and pearls. Acta Orthop Belg 2015; 81 (02) 344-348
• 14 Erivan R, Lecointe T, Villatte G, Mulliez A, Descamps S, Boisgard S. Complications with cement spacers in 2-stage treatment of periprosthetic joint infection on total hip replacement. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2018; 104 (03) 333-339
• 15 Barrack RL, Mulroy Jr RD, 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 (03) 385-389
• 16 Vaughan PD, Singh PJ, Teare R, Kucheria R, Singer GC. Femoral stem tip orientation and surgical approach in total hip arthroplasty. Hip Int 2007; 17 (04) 212-217
• 17 Salih S, Paskins A, Nichol T, Smith T, Hamer A. The cement spacer with multiple indentations: increasing antibiotic elution using a cement spacer ‘teabag’. Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B (11) 1519-1524