Polished, tapered stems are now widely used for cemented total hip replacement and many such designs have been introduced. However, a change in stem geometry may have a profound influence on stability. Stems with a wide, rectangular proximal section may be more stable than those which are narrower proximally. We examined the influence of proximal geometry on stability by comparing the two-year migration of the Exeter stem with a more recent design, the CPS-Plus, which has a wider shoulder and a more rectangular cross-section. The hypothesis was that these design features would increase rotational stability.

Both stems subsided approximately 1 mm relative to the femur during the first two years after implantation. The Exeter stem was found to rotate into valgus (mean 0.2°, sd 0.42°) and internally rotate (mean 1.28°, sd 0.99°). The CPS-Plus showed no significant valgus rotation (mean 0.2°, sd 0.42°) or internal rotation (mean −0.03°, sd 0.75°). A wider, more rectangular cross-section improves rotational stability and may have a better long-term outcome.

Aims. Periprosthetic fracture (PF) after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) is an uncommon but potentially devastating complication. This study aims to investigate the influence of cemented stem designs on the risk of needing a revision for a PF. Patients and Methods. We analysed data on 257 202 primary THAs with cemented stems and 390 linked first revisions for PF recorded in the National Joint Registry (NJR) of England, Wales and Northern Ireland to determine if a cemented femoral stem brand was associated with the risk of having revision for a PF after primary THA. All cemented femoral stem brands with more than 10 000 primary operations recorded in the NJR were identified. The four most commonly used cemented femoral stems were the Exeter V40 (n = 146 409), CPT (n = 24 300), C-Stem (n = 15 113) and Charnley (n = 20 182). We compared the revision risk ratios due to PF amongst the stems using a Poisson regression model adjusting for patient factors. Compared with the Exeter V40, the age, gender and ASA grade adjusted revision rate ratio was 3.89 for the cemented CPT stem (95% confidence interval (CI) 3.07 to 4.93), 0.89 for the C-Stem (95% CI 0.57 to 1.41) and 0.41 for the Charnley stem (95% CI 0.24 to 0.70). Conclusions. The limitations of the study include incomplete data capture, analysis of only PF requiring revision and that observation does not imply causality. Nevertheless, this study demonstrates that the choice of a cemented stem may influence the risk of revision for PF. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:1347–54

Aims

The aim of this study was to determine whether fixation, as opposed to revision arthroplasty, can be safely used to treat reducible Vancouver B type fractures in association with a cemented collarless polished tapered femoral stem (the Exeter).

The popularity of cementless total hip replacement (THR) has surpassed cemented THR in England and Wales. This retrospective cohort study records survival time to revision following primary cementless THR with the most common combination (accounting for almost a third of all cementless THRs), and explores risk factors independently associated with failure, using data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Patients with osteoarthritis who had a DePuy Corail/Pinnacle THR implanted between the establishment of the registry in 2003 and 31 December 2010 were included within analyses. There were 35 386 procedures. Cox proportional hazard models were used to analyse the extent to which the risk of revision was related to patient, surgeon and implant covariates. The overall rate of revision at five years was 2.4% (99% confidence interval 2.02 to 2.79). In the final adjusted model, we found that the risk of revision was significantly higher in patients receiving metal-on-metal (MoM: hazard ratio (HR) 1.93, p < 0.001) and ceramic-on-ceramic bearings (CoC: HR 1.55, p = 0.003) compared with the best performing bearing (metal-on-polyethylene). The risk of revision was also greater for smaller femoral stems (sizes 8 to 10: HR 1.82, p < 0.001) compared with mid-range sizes. In a secondary analysis of only patients where body mass index (BMI) data were available (n = 17 166), BMI ≥ 30 kg/m² significantly increased the risk of revision (HR 1.55, p = 0.002). The influence of the bearing on the risk of revision remained significant (MoM: HR 2.19, p < 0.001; CoC: HR 2.09, p = 0.001). The risk of revision was independent of age, gender, head size and offset, shell, liner and stem type, and surgeon characteristics.

We found significant differences in failure between bearing surfaces and femoral stem size after adjustment for a range of covariates in a large cohort of single-brand cementless THRs. In this study of procedures performed since 2003, hard bearings had significantly higher rates of revision, but we found no evidence that head size had an effect. Patient characteristics, such as BMI and American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, also influence the survival of cementless components.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:747–57.