JBJS | The Harris Design-2 Total Hip Replacement Fixed with So-Called Second-Generation Cementing Techniques. A Ten to Fifteen-Year Follow-up*

The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, Volume 80, Issue 12

Articles | December 01, 1998

The Harris Design-2 Total Hip Replacement Fixed with So-Called Second-Generation Cementing Techniques. A Ten to Fifteen-Year Follow-up*

R. B. BOURNE, M.D., F.R.C.S.(C)†; C. H. RORABECK, M.D., F.R.C.S.(C)†; M. SKUTEK, †; S. MIKKELSEN, †; M. WINEMAKER, M.D.†; D. ROBERTSON, R.N.†, LONDON, ONTARIO, CANADA

View Disclosures and Other Information

Investigation performed at London Health Sciences Centre, The University of Western Ontario, London

The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery. 1998; 80:1775-80

5 Recommendations (Recommend) | 3 Comments | Saved by 3 Users Save Case

text A A A

Abstract

We analyzed the clinical results of 195 Harris Design-2 total hip replacements performed with so-called second-generation cementing techniques in 166 consecutive patients who had osteoarthrosis. The mean age of the patients at the time of the replacement was sixty-seven years and nine months (range, thirty-one to eighty-nine years). Forty-eight patients (fifty-four hips) died before the time of the latest follow-up, but the implants were apparently functioning well at the time of death. Three patients (four hips) were lost to follow-up. Five patients (five hips; 3 percent) had a revision because of aseptic loosening of the acetabular or femoral component, or both, that was related to wear-induced osteolysis. The mean Harris hip score for the 131 hips that were available at the latest follow-up examination at a mean of twelve years (range, ten to fifteen years) after the operation was 89 ± 10 points. On the basis of the Harris hip score, seventy-six hips had an excellent result, thirty-four had a good result, fifteen had a fair result, and six had a poor result at the latest follow-up examination. Radiographically, twelve (9 percent) of the 131 acetabular components and three (2 percent) of the 131 femoral components were probably or definitely loose.At a mean of twelve years, 186 (97 percent) of 191 Harris Design-2 implants were in situ or had been in situ at the time of the patient's death.

Figures in this Article

Introduction

Introduction | Materials and Methods | Results | Discussion | References

Total hip replacement with the use of cement revolutionized the treatment of osteoarthrotic conditions of the hip^{3,5,9,10,13,15,17,19,21,22,26,27}. Since Charnley's breakthrough in the 1960s, more than six million low-friction total hip replacements have been performed. From the beginning, Charnley was concerned about the durability of the implants in terms of wear and aseptic loosening⁵. Reported rates of revision have varied with the type of implant: they have been as low as 3 to 9 percent for Charnley implants and as high as 25 percent for other implants after ten or even twenty years of follow-up^{3,12,18,22,26,27} (Table I). Concern was expressed regarding the high prevalence of radiographic loosening after use of so-called first-generation implants and finger-packing cementing techniques; these rates have ranged between 9 and 30 percent for femoral loosening and between 8 and 41 percent for acetabular loosening^{3,7,12,18,22,26,27} (Table I). To address this problem, techniques for fixation without cement, hybrid replacement (insertion of the acetabular component without cement and insertion of the femoral component with cement), and improved techniques for cementing of total hip replacements have emerged^{1-3,6,16,17,20,21,24}.

We report here the results of insertion of a cobalt-chromium femoral component and an all-polyethylene eccentric acetabular socket^{2,3,9,10,16,17} (the Harris Design-2 total hip replacement) with so-called second-generation cementing techniques (use of an intramedullary plug, lavage, drying, a cement gun, and multiple acetabular fixation holes) in patients who had osteoarthrosis. The mean duration of follow-up was twelve years (range, ten to fifteen years).

*No benefits in any form have been received or will be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article. No funds were received in support of this study.

†London Health Sciences Centre, University Campus, The University of Western Ontario, 339 Windermere Road, London, Ontario N6A 5A5, Canada. E-mail address: robert.bourne@lhsc.on.ca (Dr. Bourne).

*No benefits in any form have been received or will be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article. No funds were received in support of this study.

†London Health Sciences Centre, University Campus, The University of Western Ontario, 339 Windermere Road, London, Ontario N6A 5A5, Canada. E-mail address: robert.bourne@lhsc.on.ca (Dr. Bourne).

View Larger

TABLE I REPORTED RESULTS OF REPLACEMENT WITH CHARNLEY AND MÜLLER PROSTHESES AT LEAST TEN YEARS AFTER INSERTION WITH FIRST-GENERATION CEMENTING TECHNIQUES

Type of Prosthesis	Study	No. of Hips	Rate of Clinical Success (percent)	Rate of Revision (percent)	Rate of Femoral Loosening (percent)	Rate of Acetabular Loosening (percent)
Charnley	Salvati et al.²²	100	88	3
	Older¹⁸	153	88	6	—	41
	Johnston and Crowninshield¹²	178	87	4	9	8
	Stauffer²⁶	207	—	9	30	11
Müller	Sutherland et al.²⁷	53	45	25	29	40

Add to My JBJS

TABLE I REPORTED RESULTS OF REPLACEMENT WITH CHARNLEY AND MÜLLER PROSTHESES AT LEAST TEN YEARS AFTER INSERTION WITH FIRST-GENERATION CEMENTING TECHNIQUES

Type of Prosthesis	Study	No. of Hips	Rate of Clinical Success (percent)	Rate of Revision (percent)	Rate of Femoral Loosening (percent)	Rate of Acetabular Loosening (percent)
Charnley	Salvati et al.²²	100	88	3
	Older¹⁸	153	88	6	—	41
	Johnston and Crowninshield¹²	178	87	4	9	8
	Stauffer²⁶	207	—	9	30	11
Müller	Sutherland et al.²⁷	53	45	25	29	40

View Larger

TABLE II LATEST HARRIS HIP SCORES⁸, ACCORDING TO THE AGE OF THE PATIENT AT THE TIME OF THE INDEX REPLACEMENT

Age of Patient (yrs.)	No. of Hips	Mean Harris Hip Score (points)
30—40	1	100 ± 0
41—50	6	93 ± 8
51—60	22	93 ± 8
61—70	71	90 ± 8
71—80	29	83 ± 9
81—90	2	62 ± 16

Add to My JBJS

TABLE II LATEST HARRIS HIP SCORES⁸, ACCORDING TO THE AGE OF THE PATIENT AT THE TIME OF THE INDEX REPLACEMENT

Age of Patient (yrs.)	No. of Hips	Mean Harris Hip Score (points)
30—40	1	100 ± 0
41—50	6	93 ± 8
51—60	22	93 ± 8
61—70	71	90 ± 8
71—80	29	83 ± 9
81—90	2	62 ± 16

View Larger

TABLE III DATA ON THE FIVE PATIENTS WHO HAD A REVISION

*The femoral component was inserted with cement, and the acetabular component was inserted without cement.

Gender	Age at Index Replacement (yrs.)	Time from Replacement to Revision (yrs.)	Component That Loosened	Type of Revision
F	78	14	Acetabular & femoral	Extensively coated femoral component, metal-backed acetabular component without cement
F	68	11	Femoral	Hybrid*, impaction grafting
M	81	13	Femoral	Without cement
M	62	6	Femoral	Without cement
M	83	9	Acetabular & femoral	Hybrid*

Add to My JBJS

TABLE III DATA ON THE FIVE PATIENTS WHO HAD A REVISION

*The femoral component was inserted with cement, and the acetabular component was inserted without cement.

Gender	Age at Index Replacement (yrs.)	Time from Replacement to Revision (yrs.)	Component That Loosened	Type of Revision
F	78	14	Acetabular & femoral	Extensively coated femoral component, metal-backed acetabular component without cement
F	68	11	Femoral	Hybrid*, impaction grafting
M	81	13	Femoral	Without cement
M	62	6	Femoral	Without cement
M	83	9	Acetabular & femoral	Hybrid*

View Larger

TABLE IV CATEGORIZATION OF REVISIONS AND HARRIS HIP SCORES⁸ ACCORDING TO THE TYPE OF CEMENTING TECHNIQUE¹

*Only 111 immediate postoperative radiographs were available.

Cementing Technique	No. of Hips*	No. of Revisions	Mean Harris Hip Score (points)
Femoral component
Type A	33	—	90 ± 12
Type B	62	1	89 ± 10
Type C	15	3	86 ± 9
Type D	1	1	—
Acetabular component
Type A	30	1	88 ± 10
Type B	69	2	89 ± 11
Type C	12	2	92 ± 5
Type D	0	—	—

Add to My JBJS

TABLE IV CATEGORIZATION OF REVISIONS AND HARRIS HIP SCORES⁸ ACCORDING TO THE TYPE OF CEMENTING TECHNIQUE¹

*Only 111 immediate postoperative radiographs were available.

Cementing Technique	No. of Hips*	No. of Revisions	Mean Harris Hip Score (points)
Femoral component
Type A	33	—	90 ± 12
Type B	62	1	89 ± 10
Type C	15	3	86 ± 9
Type D	1	1	—
Acetabular component
Type A	30	1	88 ± 10
Type B	69	2	89 ± 11
Type C	12	2	92 ± 5
Type D	0	—	—

View Larger

TABLE V CATEGORIZATION OF RADIOGRAPHIC LOOSENING OF THE FEMORAL COMPONENTS ACCORDING TO THE TYPE OF CEMENTING TECHNIQUE¹

*Only 111 immediate postoperative radiographs were available. †All of the definitely loose components were revised.

Cementing Technique	No. of Hips*	Radiographic Loosening (no. of hips)
Possible	Probable	Definite†
Type A	33	1	1
Type B	62	3	1	1
Type C	15	1	—	3
Type D	1	—	—	1

Add to My JBJS

TABLE V CATEGORIZATION OF RADIOGRAPHIC LOOSENING OF THE FEMORAL COMPONENTS ACCORDING TO THE TYPE OF CEMENTING TECHNIQUE¹

*Only 111 immediate postoperative radiographs were available. †All of the definitely loose components were revised.

Cementing Technique	No. of Hips*	Radiographic Loosening (no. of hips)
Possible	Probable	Definite†
Type A	33	1	1
Type B	62	3	1	1
Type C	15	1	—	3
Type D	1	—	—	1

View Large | Download Slide(.ppt)
Add to My JBJS

Fig. 1 Anteroposterior radiograph made thirteen years after a total hip replacement performed with Harris Design-2 components inserted with cement.

View Large | Download Slide(.ppt)
Add to My JBJS

Figs. 2-A and 2-B: A sixty-eight-year-old woman who had a total hip replacement performed with Harris Design-2 components inserted with cement. Fig. 2-A: Anteroposterior radiograph demonstrating aseptic loosening of the femoral component and wear of the well fixed acetabular component eleven years postoperatively.

View Large | Download Slide(.ppt)
Add to My JBJS

Fig. 2-B: Anteroposterior radiograph made two years after successful revision with impaction grafting on the femoral side and insertion of the acetabular component without cement.

Materials and Methods

Introduction | Materials and Methods | Results | Discussion | References

One hundred and ninety-five consecutive Harris Design-2 total hip replacements (Howmedica, East Rutherford, New Jersey) were performed, between July 1978 and June 1985, by the senior ones of us (R. B. B. and C. H. R.) in 166 consecutive patients who had osteoarthrosis (Fig. 1). The mean age of the eighty-two men and eighty-four women at the time of the operation was sixty-seven years and nine months (range, thirty-one to eighty-nine years). One hundred and six right hips and eighty-nine left hips were involved. The acetabular component was all-polyethylene with an eccentric articulation that maximized the thickness of the polyethylene in the superior and posterior quadrants. The femoral component was available in three sizes (small, medium, and large) but did not have proportional dimensions since the length of the stem remained constant for all stem sizes. The femoral component had a collar, a matte finish, and a rounded rectangular cross section.

All of the total hip replacements were inserted through a posterolateral operative approach with which the short external rotators and the femoral attachment of the gluteus maximus were incised during exposure of the joint and then were reattached at the end of the procedure. A posterior capsulectomy of the hip joint was followed by an anterior capsulectomy to aid anterior displacement of the femur¹⁷.

The Harris Design-2 implants were fixed with so-called second-generation cementing techniques. The acetabulum was medialized to the floor of the foveal notch and reamed until bleeding subchondral bone was encountered. Every effort was made to preserve acetabular subchondral bone. A cebetome burr (Zimmer, Warsaw, Indiana) was used to make ten to fifteen five-millimeter-deep cement-fixation holes in the periphery of the acetabular socket. The osseous bed was meticulously cleaned with a saline-solution lavage system and then was dried. Thrombin-soaked Gelfoam pads were packed into the acetabulum while the cement was being mixed. Simplex-P bone cement (Howmedica) in the doughy stage was placed in the acetabulum and was pressurized with the forty-two-millimeter-diameter circular handle of the acetabular holder. An attempt was made to insert the acetabular component at 40 degrees from the horizontal with approximately 10 degrees of anteversion.

The femoral component was selected after the proximal end of the femoral canal had been opened with a box osteotome and an awl and then rasped to a size that corresponded with the size that had been determined with preoperative templating or until resistance was encountered. The femoral neck was prepared with a calcar reamer to improve contact between the collar and the calcar. The femoral canal was cleaned with a Miller cement brush (Zimmer) and then was lavaged with saline solution. A cement intramedullary plug was inserted two centimeters distal to the tip of the femoral component. A thrombin-soaked sponge was packed into the femoral canal while the cement was being mixed. The sponge was removed, and the femoral canal was meticulously dried with gauze sponges. The canal was then filled with cement in a retrograde fashion from the intramedullary plug proximally with use of a cement gun. The proximal cement was pressurized by the surgeon with a clean-gloved thumb by occluding the femoral neck and pressing distally two or three times. The femoral component was inserted carefully; contamination of the cement with blood as well as any rotatory movements were avoided. Every attempt was made to keep the femoral component in a neutral or valgus orientation. The femoral component was anteverted in agreement with the orientation of the retained femoral neck.

The patients were prospectively evaluated preoperatively; at six weeks, three months, six months, and one year; and yearly thereafter with use of a modified Harris hip score that incorporated radiographic parameters⁸. Any abnormal intraoperative findings were recorded on an intraoperative data form. All of the prospective data were gathered by three independent clinical research assistants.

The quality of the cementing technique was evaluated radiographically, with use of the zones of Gruen et al.⁷ on the femoral side and those of DeLee and Charnley⁵ on the acetabular side, by medical personnel who were not associated with the original operation (M. S., S. M., and M. W.). Radiographic assessment included categorization of the original cementing technique for both the acetabular and the femoral component¹. Type A indicated a so-called whiteout between the component and the surrounding bone, type B indicated very good cementing overall but some osseous trabeculae that were incompletely filled with cement, type C indicated an incomplete cement mantle either from abutment of the implant or from voids, and type D indicated an incomplete cement mantle¹⁰. The clinical results were examined according to these criteria and were also categorized according to the age of the patient at the time of the replacement.

Results

Introduction | Materials and Methods | Results | Discussion | References

Forty-eight patients (fifty-four hips) died before the most recent follow-up examination, which was performed ten to fifteen years (mean, twelve years) post-operatively. All of the implants had been in place at the time of death, and the function had been clinically and radiographically satisfactory. Five (3 percent) of the 195 hips had been revised. One patient (one hip) who was seventy-two years old and had residual hemiplegia after a stroke was excluded from the latest follow-up evaluation because mobility was limited to bed-to-chair transfers; however, the result was radiographically satisfactory. Three patients (four hips) were lost to follow-up.

Early complications (those occurring less than four weeks postoperatively) included dislocation (three patients), pulmonary embolus (one), and death (one). Late complications included dislocation (two patients), aseptic loosening (five), Brooker et al.⁴ grade-III or IV heterotopic bone formation (fourteen), and periprosthetic fracture (one).

One hundred and thirty-one hips were available for the latest follow-up examination. The results according to the Harris hip score⁸ were categorized as excellent (90 to 100 points), good (80 to 89 points), fair (70 to 79 points), and poor (less than 70 points). The result was excellent for seventy-six hips, good for thirty-four, fair for fifteen, and poor for six. The clinical results were also categorized according to the age of the patient (by decade) at the time of the total hip replacement (Table II). The mean score was 100 ± 0 points for the patients between thirty and forty years old (one hip), 93 ± 8 points for those between forty-one and fifty (six hips), 93 ± 8 points for those between fifty-one and sixty (twenty-two hips), 90 ± 8 points for those between sixty-one and seventy (seventy-one hips), 83 ± 9 points for those between seventy-one and eighty (twenty-nine hips), and 62 ± 16 point for those between eighty-one and ninety (two hips). The mean score for all 131 hips was 89 ± 10 points.

Five patients (five hips) had a revision (Table III). One of them, a seventy-eight-year-old woman who had unilateral osteoarthrosis, was seen fourteen years post-operatively for a painful left hip. Radiographs revealed evidence of osteolysis on both the acetabular and the femoral side of the joint with definite loosening of both implants. The replacement was successfully revised with use of an extensively coated femoral component and a metal-backed acetabular component inserted without cement. Another patient, a sixty-eight-year-old woman, had a revision eleven years postoperatively because of aseptic loosening of the femoral component and wear of the well fixed acetabular component (Figs. 2-A and 2-B). Radiographs revealed radiolucent scalloping of the femur that was typical of osteolysis with definite loosening (Fig. 2-A). This patient did well following a revision with use of a femoral component inserted with impaction-grafting techniques and an acetabular socket inserted without cement (Fig. 2-B). The third patient who had a revision, an eighty-one-year-old man, had the procedure thirteen years postoperatively because of aseptic loosening of the femoral component; both components were replaced with implants inserted without cement. The fourth patient, a sixty-two-year-old man who had had a bilateral hip replacement, had revision of the left hip six years postoperatively, after radiographs revealed evidence of loosening of the femoral component. Both components were revised because of aseptic loosening of the femoral component and wear of the acetabular socket; the revision components were inserted without cement and with bone-grafting in the trochanteric region. Finally, a revision was performed in an eighty-three-year-old man who had had a bilateral hip replacement and increasing pain in the left hip nine years postoperatively. Radiographically, there was a complete radiolucent line around the acetabular and femoral components. Both components were successfully revised with a hybrid replacement.

The radiographs of the 131 hips that were seen at the time of the latest follow-up were assessed by three orthopaedic surgeons who had not been involved with the original operations. There was a radiolucent line in zone I around thirteen femoral components (10 percent), in zone II around ten (8 percent), in zone III around twelve (9 percent), in zone IV around four (3 percent), in zone V around nine (7 percent), in zone VI around seventeen (13 percent), and in zone VII around seventeen. Radiolucent lines were observed in zone I around fifty acetabular components (38 percent), in zone II around thirty (23 percent), and in zone III around fifty-four (41 percent).

The cementing technique for the 111 hips for which the immediate postoperative radiographs were available was examined with respect to the most recent Harris hip score⁸ (Table IV). The mean score was 90 ± 12 points for the thirty-three femoral components for which the cementing technique had been type A, 89 ± 10 points for the sixty-two for which it had been type B, and 86 ± 9 points for the fifteen for which it had been type C. The femoral component for which the cementing technique had been type D had been revised before the most recent follow-up examination. The mean score was 88 ± 10 points for the thirty acetabular components for which the cementing technique had been type A, 89 ± 11 points for the sixty-nine for which it had been type B, and 92 ± 5 points for the twelve for which it had been type C.

The components were assessed radiographically at the latest examination and categorized as possibly, probably, or definitely loose according to the criteria of Harris et al.^10,11,14,23. A radiolucent line at least two millimeters wide surrounding 50 to 99 percent of the implant was considered evidence of possible loosening, and a radiolucent line at least two millimeters wide surrounding the entire implant indicated probable loosening. A component was considered definitely loose if it had migrated. Five femoral components were possibly loose, and two were probably loose. Five femoral components were definitely loose and were revised. The degree of loosening of the femoral components was examined with respect to the initial cementing technique (Table V). One possibly loose and one probably loose component had been cemented with type-A technique; three possibly loose, one probably loose, and one definitely loose component, with type-B; one possibly loose and three definitely loose components, with type-C; and one definitely loose component, with type-D. Ten acetabular components were probably loose, and two were definitely loose.

Discussion

Introduction | Materials and Methods | Results | Discussion | References

In the present study, in which the duration of follow-up was ten to fifteen years (mean, twelve years), the clinical and radiographic results of Harris Design-2 total hip replacements performed with so-called second-generation cementing techniques were better than those reported for implants inserted with first-generation techniques^{3,7,12,18,22,26,27}.

So-called second-generation cementing techniques, which include the use of an intramedullary cement plug, meticulous cleaning of the femoral canal, and the use of one of three sizes of femoral stem to fit a given femur, seem to be worthwhile³. Whether the use of a proportionally longer femoral stem, a proximally textured or precoated femoral component, a centralizer, or porosity-reduced cement would have improved the results of the present study is not known⁶. Although the rate of revision was low (3 percent; five of 195 hips), we are concerned by the rates of probable and definite loosening (9 percent [twelve of 131] for the acetabular components and 2 percent [three of 131] for the femoral components) that were noted in the present study as well as in other studies^{12,18,22,26,27}. No metal-backed acetabular components inserted with cement were used in the present study¹⁹.

The results of the present study are similar to those of Mulroy et al.¹⁷ in terms of the rates of revision and radiographic loosening of the femoral component, but they are remarkably different with regard to the rates for the acetabular component. The rate of acetabular revision in the present study was 3 percent (five of 195) compared with 10 percent (eight of eighty-one) in the study of Mulroy et al., and the rate of radiographic loosening of the acetabular component in the present study was 9 percent (twelve of 131) compared with 42 percent (twenty-eight of sixty-seven) in the study by Mulroy et al. Our results are more similar to those reported by others and are perhaps related to factors such as the inclusion of only patients who had osteoarthrosis as well as the use of only one type of implant^{13,15,25,28,29}. In addition, depending on the size of the acetabulum, the acetabular operative technique in our study involved ten to fifteen five-millimeter peripheral cement-fixation holes, whereas Mulroy et al. used three 12.5-millimeter fixation holes in the pubis, ilium, and ischium. The implication is that fixation involving multiple peripheral acetabular holes is more durable than that involving three 12.5-millimeter holes.

It is interesting compare the results of the present study and those of other ten or even twenty-year follow-up studies of total hip replacement with cement with the findings reported by Charnley^{3,12,18,22,26,27} and with those of other studies³ in which the results of replacement with the Charnley implant were studied after the same follow-up intervals. We recognize the limitations of using historic controls instead of a randomized clinical trial. Both the Harris Design-2 and the flat-backed Charnley femoral component have a rounded rectangular cross section and come in a single length. The rate of revision in the present study was slightly lower (3 percent; five of 195 hips) than those (3 to 9 percent) in studies involving so-called first-generation cementing techniques and the Charnley polished flat-backed prosthesis^{12,18,22,26,27} (Table I). The introduction of so-called second-generation cementing techniques also greatly enhanced radiographic fixation.

References

Introduction | Materials and Methods | Results | Discussion | References

Barrack, R. L.; Mulroy, R. D., Jr.; and Harris, W. H.: Improved cementing techniques and femoral component loosening in young patients with hip arthroplasty. A 12-year radiographic review. J Bone and Joint Surg.,74-B(3): 385-389, 1992.74-B(3)385 1992

Bourne, R. B.; Oh, I.; and Harris, W. H.: Femoral cement pressurization during total hip arthroplasty. The role of different femoral stems with reference to stem size and shape. Clin. Orthop.,183: 12-16, 1984.18312 1984 [PubMed]

Bourne, R. B.: Total hip arthroplasty: cemented operative techniques. In Surgery of the Musculoskeletal System, edited by C. McC. Evarts. Ed. 2, vol. 3, pp. 2957-2997. New York, Churchill Livingstone, 1990.

Brooker, A. F.; Bowerman, J. W.; Robinson, R. A.; and Riley, L. H., Jr.: Ectopic ossification following total hip replacement. Incidence and a method of classification. J. Bone and Joint Surg.,55-A: 1629-1632, Dec. 1973.55-A1629 1973

Charnley, J.: Low Friction Arthroplasty of the Hip: Theory and Practice. New York, Springer, 1979.

Davies, J. P.; Jasty, M.; O'Connor, D. O.; Burke, D. W.; Harrigan, T. P.; and Harris, W. H.: The effect of centrifuging bone cement. J. Bone and Joint Surg.,71-B(1): 39-42, 1989.71-B(1)39 1989

Gruen, T. A.; McNeice, G. M.; and Amstutz, H. C.: "Modes of failure" of cemented stem-type femoral components. A radiographic analysis of loosening. Clin. Orthop.,141: 17-27, 1979.14117 1979 [PubMed]

Harris, W. H.: Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. J. Bone and Joint Surg.,51-A: 737-755, June 1969.51-A737 1969

Harris, W. H.; McCarthy, J. C., Jr.; and O'Neill, D. A.: Femoral component loosening using contemporary techniques of femoral cement fixation. J. Bone and Joint Surg.,64-A: 1063-1067, Sept. 1982.64-A1063 1982

Harris, W. H., and McGann, W. A.: Loosening of the femoral component after use of the medullar-plug cementing technique. Follow-up note with a minimum five-year follow-up. J. Bone and Joint Surg.,68-A: 1064-1066, Sept. 1986.68-A1064 1986

Jasty, M.; Maloney, W. J.; Bragdon, C. R.; Haire, T.; and Harris, W. H.: Histomorphological studies of the long-term skeletal responses to well fixed cemented femoral components. J. Bone and Joint Surg.,72-A: 1220-1229, Sept. 1990.72-A1220 1990

Johnston, R. C., and Crowninshield, R. D.: Roentgenologic results of total hip arthroplasty: a ten-year follow-up study. Clin. Orthop.,181: 92-98, 1983.18192 1983 [PubMed]

Kavanagh, B. F.; Dewitz, M. A.; Ilstrup, D. M.; Stauffer, R. N.; and Coventry, M. B.: Charnley total hip arthroplasty with cement. Fifteen-year results. J. Bone and Joint Surg.,71-A: 1496-1503, Dec. 1989.71-A1496 1989

Kwong, L. M.; Jasty, M.; Mulroy, R. D.; Maloney, W. J.; Bragdon, C.; and Harris, W. H.: The histology of the radiolucent line. J. Bone and Joint Surg.,74-B(1): 67-73, 1992.74-B(1)67 1992

McCoy, T. H.; Salvati, E. A.; Ranawat, C. S.; and Wilson, P. D., Jr.: A fifteen-year follow-up study of one hundred Charnley low-friction arthoplasties. Orthop. Clin. North America,19: 467-476, 1988.19467 1988

Mulroy, R. D., Jr., and Harris, W. H.: The effect of improved cementing techniques on component loosening in total hip replacement. An 11-year radiographic review. J. Bone and Joint Surg.,72-B(5): 757-760, 1990.72-B(5)757 1990

Mulroy, W. F.; Estok, D. M.; and Harris, W. H.: Total hip arthroplasty with use of so-called second-generation cementing techniques. J. Bone and Joint Surg.,77-A: 1845-1852, Dec. 1995.77-A1845 1995

Older, J.: Low-friction arthroplasty of the hip. A 10—12 year follow-up study. Clin. Orthop.,211: 36-42, 1986.21136 1986 [PubMed]

Ritter, M. A.; Faris, P. M.; Keating, E. M.; and Brugo, G.: Influential factors in cemented acetabular cup loosening. J. Arthroplasty,7 (Supplement): 365-367, 1992.7 (Supplement)365 1992

Roberts, D. W.; Poss, R.; and Kelley, K.: Radiographic comparison of cementing techniques in total hip arthroplasty. J. Arthroplasty,1: 241-247, 1986.1241 1986 [PubMed]

Russotti, G. M.; Coventry, M. B.; and Stauffer, R. N.: Cemented total hip arthroplasty with contemporary techniques. A five-year minimum follow-up study. Clin. Orthop.,235: 141-147, 1988.235141 1988 [PubMed]

Salvati, E. A.; Wilson, P. D., Jr.; Jolley, M. N.; Vakili, F.; Aglietti, P.; and Brown, G. C.: A ten-year follow-up study of our first one hundred consecutive Charnley total hip replacements. J. Bone and Joint Surg.,63-A: 753-767, June 1981.63-A753 1981

Schmalzried, T. P.; Jasty, M.; and Harris, W. H.: Periprosthetic bone loss in total hip arthroplasty. Polyethylene wear debris and the concept of the effective joint space. J. Bone and Joint Surg.,74-A: 849-863, July 1992.74-A849 1992

Schmalzried, T. P., and Harris, W. H.: Hybrid total hip replacement. A 6.5-year follow-up study. J. Bone and Joint Surg.,75-B(4): 608-615, 1993.75-B(4)608 1993

Schulte, K. R.; Callaghan, J. J.; Kelley, S. S.; and Johnston, R. C.: The outcome of Charnley total hip arthroplasty with cement after a minimum twenty-year follow-up. The results of one surgeon. J. Bone and Joint Surg.,75-A: 961-975, July 1993.75-A961 1993

Stauffer, R. N.: Ten-year follow-up study of total hip replacement. With particular reference to roentgenographic loosening of the components. J. Bone and Joint Surg.,64-A: 983-990, Sept. 1982.64-A983 1982

Sutherland, C. J.; Wilde, A. H.; Borden, L. S.; and Marks, K. E.: A ten-year follow-up of one hundred consecutive Müller curved-stem total hip-replacement arthroplasties. J. Bone and Joint Surg.,64-A: 970-982, Sept. 1982.64-A970 1982

Welch, R. B.; McGann, W. A.; and Picetti, G. D., III: Charnley low-friction arthroplasty. A fifteen- to seventeen-year follow-up study. Orthop. Clin. North America,19: 551-555, 1988.19551 1988

Wroblewski, B. M.: 15—21-year results of the Charnley low-friction arthroplasty. Clin. Orthop.,211: 30-35, 1986.21130 1986 [PubMed]

Topics

View Large | Download Slide(.ppt)
Add to My JBJS

Fig. 1 Anteroposterior radiograph made thirteen years after a total hip replacement performed with Harris Design-2 components inserted with cement.

View Large | Download Slide(.ppt)
Add to My JBJS

Fig. 2-B: Anteroposterior radiograph made two years after successful revision with impaction grafting on the femoral side and insertion of the acetabular component without cement.

View Larger

TABLE I REPORTED RESULTS OF REPLACEMENT WITH CHARNLEY AND MÜLLER PROSTHESES AT LEAST TEN YEARS AFTER INSERTION WITH FIRST-GENERATION CEMENTING TECHNIQUES

Type of Prosthesis	Study	No. of Hips	Rate of Clinical Success (percent)	Rate of Revision (percent)	Rate of Femoral Loosening (percent)	Rate of Acetabular Loosening (percent)
Charnley	Salvati et al.²²	100	88	3
	Older¹⁸	153	88	6	—	41
	Johnston and Crowninshield¹²	178	87	4	9	8
	Stauffer²⁶	207	—	9	30	11
Müller	Sutherland et al.²⁷	53	45	25	29	40

Add to My JBJS

TABLE I REPORTED RESULTS OF REPLACEMENT WITH CHARNLEY AND MÜLLER PROSTHESES AT LEAST TEN YEARS AFTER INSERTION WITH FIRST-GENERATION CEMENTING TECHNIQUES

Type of Prosthesis	Study	No. of Hips	Rate of Clinical Success (percent)	Rate of Revision (percent)	Rate of Femoral Loosening (percent)	Rate of Acetabular Loosening (percent)
Charnley	Salvati et al.²²	100	88	3
	Older¹⁸	153	88	6	—	41
	Johnston and Crowninshield¹²	178	87	4	9	8
	Stauffer²⁶	207	—	9	30	11
Müller	Sutherland et al.²⁷	53	45	25	29	40

View Larger

TABLE II LATEST HARRIS HIP SCORES⁸, ACCORDING TO THE AGE OF THE PATIENT AT THE TIME OF THE INDEX REPLACEMENT

Age of Patient (yrs.)	No. of Hips	Mean Harris Hip Score (points)
30—40	1	100 ± 0
41—50	6	93 ± 8
51—60	22	93 ± 8
61—70	71	90 ± 8
71—80	29	83 ± 9
81—90	2	62 ± 16

Add to My JBJS

TABLE II LATEST HARRIS HIP SCORES⁸, ACCORDING TO THE AGE OF THE PATIENT AT THE TIME OF THE INDEX REPLACEMENT

Age of Patient (yrs.)	No. of Hips	Mean Harris Hip Score (points)
30—40	1	100 ± 0
41—50	6	93 ± 8
51—60	22	93 ± 8
61—70	71	90 ± 8
71—80	29	83 ± 9
81—90	2	62 ± 16

View Larger

TABLE III DATA ON THE FIVE PATIENTS WHO HAD A REVISION

*The femoral component was inserted with cement, and the acetabular component was inserted without cement.

Gender	Age at Index Replacement (yrs.)	Time from Replacement to Revision (yrs.)	Component That Loosened	Type of Revision
F	78	14	Acetabular & femoral	Extensively coated femoral component, metal-backed acetabular component without cement
F	68	11	Femoral	Hybrid*, impaction grafting
M	81	13	Femoral	Without cement
M	62	6	Femoral	Without cement
M	83	9	Acetabular & femoral	Hybrid*

Add to My JBJS

TABLE III DATA ON THE FIVE PATIENTS WHO HAD A REVISION

*The femoral component was inserted with cement, and the acetabular component was inserted without cement.

Gender	Age at Index Replacement (yrs.)	Time from Replacement to Revision (yrs.)	Component That Loosened	Type of Revision
F	78	14	Acetabular & femoral	Extensively coated femoral component, metal-backed acetabular component without cement
F	68	11	Femoral	Hybrid*, impaction grafting
M	81	13	Femoral	Without cement
M	62	6	Femoral	Without cement
M	83	9	Acetabular & femoral	Hybrid*

View Larger

TABLE IV CATEGORIZATION OF REVISIONS AND HARRIS HIP SCORES⁸ ACCORDING TO THE TYPE OF CEMENTING TECHNIQUE¹

*Only 111 immediate postoperative radiographs were available.

Cementing Technique	No. of Hips*	No. of Revisions	Mean Harris Hip Score (points)
Femoral component
Type A	33	—	90 ± 12
Type B	62	1	89 ± 10
Type C	15	3	86 ± 9
Type D	1	1	—
Acetabular component
Type A	30	1	88 ± 10
Type B	69	2	89 ± 11
Type C	12	2	92 ± 5
Type D	0	—	—

Add to My JBJS

TABLE IV CATEGORIZATION OF REVISIONS AND HARRIS HIP SCORES⁸ ACCORDING TO THE TYPE OF CEMENTING TECHNIQUE¹

*Only 111 immediate postoperative radiographs were available.

Cementing Technique	No. of Hips*	No. of Revisions	Mean Harris Hip Score (points)
Femoral component
Type A	33	—	90 ± 12
Type B	62	1	89 ± 10
Type C	15	3	86 ± 9
Type D	1	1	—
Acetabular component
Type A	30	1	88 ± 10
Type B	69	2	89 ± 11
Type C	12	2	92 ± 5
Type D	0	—	—

View Larger

TABLE V CATEGORIZATION OF RADIOGRAPHIC LOOSENING OF THE FEMORAL COMPONENTS ACCORDING TO THE TYPE OF CEMENTING TECHNIQUE¹

*Only 111 immediate postoperative radiographs were available. †All of the definitely loose components were revised.

Cementing Technique	No. of Hips*	Radiographic Loosening (no. of hips)
Possible	Probable	Definite†
Type A	33	1	1
Type B	62	3	1	1
Type C	15	1	—	3
Type D	1	—	—	1

Add to My JBJS

TABLE V CATEGORIZATION OF RADIOGRAPHIC LOOSENING OF THE FEMORAL COMPONENTS ACCORDING TO THE TYPE OF CEMENTING TECHNIQUE¹

*Only 111 immediate postoperative radiographs were available. †All of the definitely loose components were revised.

Cementing Technique	No. of Hips*	Radiographic Loosening (no. of hips)
Possible	Probable	Definite†
Type A	33	1	1
Type B	62	3	1	1
Type C	15	1	—	3
Type D	1	—	—	1