Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Endoprosthetic surgery in 1988.

E Morscher1

  • 1Department of Surgery, University of Basel, Switzerland.

Annales Chirurgiae Et Gynaecologiae
|January 1, 1989
PubMed
Summary

This review discusses the challenges and strategies in endoprosthetic fixation for arthroplasty procedures. Aseptic loosening remains a major issue, prompting the development of new cement techniques and cementless fixation methods. The study compares cement pressurization and bony ingrowth as two primary fixation approaches. It highlights the importance of implant design, surgical technique, and patient-specific factors in determining fixation success. Hybrid approaches are recommended for older patients, while cementless fixation is preferred in younger patients and revision cases with significant bone loss. The review concludes that no single fixation method is universally superior, and surgeons must tailor their approach based on individual patient needs and clinical conditions.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

[Criteria for evaluating hip joint arthroplasty].

Praxis·2003
Same author

[Acetabulum revision. Classifications and treatment possibilities].

Der Orthopade·2001
Same author

Alpine and cross-country skiing after total hip replacement: 2 cohorts of 50 patients each, one active, the other inactive in skiing, followed for 5-10 years.

Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica·2000
Same author

Morton's intermetatarsal neuroma: morphology and histological substrate.

Foot & ankle international·2000
Same author

Total hip arthroplasty after arthrodesis of the hip joint.

Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery·2000
Same author

[Comparative periprosthetic bone density measurements of the proximal femur shaft using dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) with experimental "Press Fit-gliding Stem Prosthesis"].

Zeitschrift fur Orthopadie und ihre Grenzgebiete·1998

Area of Science:

  • Orthopedic surgery techniques
  • Arthroplasty outcomes research
  • Biomechanics of implant fixation

Background:

Aseptic loosening remains a significant challenge in arthroplasty procedures. While new cement formulations and improved cementing techniques have been developed, alternative fixation methods have also gained attention. One major focus has been on achieving direct implant-bone anchoring. Two primary approaches for endoprosthetic fixation are currently available: cement pressurization and bony ingrowth. The choice of fixation method depends on multiple factors, including implant design, surface properties, and surgical technique. The acetabulum and femur present distinct biological and mechanical challenges. In the acetabulum, reliable fixation has been achieved in the medium term. Similar progress is emerging in femoral fixation, though cement techniques still provide more consistent pain-free outcomes. Surgeons often consider hybrid approaches for older patients, combining cementless and cemented techniques. For younger or revision cases, cementless fixation is preferred, especially when bone loss is significant.

Purpose Of The Study:

Keywords:
Arthroplasty techniquesImplant fixation methodsOrthopedic surgery outcomesBone-prosthetic interface

Frequently Asked Questions

Aseptic loosening remains the primary challenge in arthroplasty, affecting long-term implant stability.

The review discusses cement pressurization and bony ingrowth as the two primary fixation techniques.

Cementless fixation is preferred in younger patients and revision cases with significant bone loss due to its long-term stability potential.

A hybrid approach combines cementless acetabular fixation with cemented femoral fixation, commonly used in patients over 60 years old.

Related Experiment Videos

The purpose of this review is to evaluate current endoprosthetic fixation strategies in arthroplasty. The study aims to clarify the advantages and limitations of cemented versus cementless techniques. It also explores how implant design and surgical methods influence fixation outcomes. The review considers the biological and mechanical differences between the acetabulum and femur. It highlights the role of cement pressurization and bony ingrowth in implant fixation. The study addresses the challenges of aseptic loosening and how fixation methods can mitigate this issue. It also examines the use of hybrid techniques in older patients and cementless approaches in younger or revision cases. The goal is to provide a comprehensive overview of fixation options and their clinical relevance.

Main Methods:

The review synthesizes findings from published literature on endoprosthetic fixation. It compares cemented and cementless techniques, focusing on their biological and mechanical implications. The analysis includes implant design, surface characteristics, and material properties. The study also considers the impact of surgical technique on fixation outcomes. It evaluates the effectiveness of cement pressurization and bony ingrowth in different anatomical regions. The review assesses the success rates of cemented and cementless fixation in the acetabulum and femur. It examines the role of hybrid approaches in older patients and cementless techniques in younger or revision cases. The study concludes with an analysis of future directions in implant fixation strategies.

Main Results:

The review highlights that cemented fixation remains the most reliable method for achieving pain-free outcomes in the femur. Cementless techniques have shown promise in the acetabulum, with medium-term success rates. Hybrid approaches are increasingly used for patients over 60, combining cementless and cemented fixation. Cementless fixation is preferred in younger patients and revision cases with significant bone loss. Bone transplantation is often used alongside cementless techniques to reconstruct damaged joints. In knee arthroplasty, aseptic loosening is less common with cemented prostheses. The choice of fixation method depends on patient age, bone quality, and surgical goals. The review suggests that a single fixation method will not suffice for all cases, emphasizing the need for individualized treatment planning.

Conclusions:

The authors conclude that aseptic loosening remains a critical issue in arthroplasty, with no single fixation method proving universally superior. Cemented fixation continues to provide reliable outcomes in the femur, while cementless techniques show promise in the acetabulum. Hybrid approaches are effective for older patients, but cementless fixation is preferred in younger or revision cases. The success of fixation depends on implant design, surgical technique, and patient-specific factors. The review emphasizes the importance of accurate preoperative planning in selecting the most appropriate fixation method. Future research should focus on improving cementless fixation outcomes and expanding hybrid techniques. The authors suggest that surgeons must tailor their approach to each patient’s unique clinical situation. The study underscores the need for continued innovation in implant fixation strategies.

In knee arthroplasty, cementless fixation decisions depend more on bone quality than in hip arthroplasty, as aseptic loosening is less common with cemented prostheses.

The review suggests that no single fixation method will suffice for all cases, emphasizing the need for individualized treatment planning and accurate preoperative assessment.