Log in

Comparison of distal and proximal centralising devices in hip arthroplasty

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Centralising devices were introduced to ensure that the prosthesis is implanted in a neutral position and that a cement mantle of optimal thickness is achieved proximally and distally. A distal centralising device (DCD) is compared with a proximal midshaft centralising device (PCD) to test which one provides a more neutral prosthetic alignment. Thirty consecutive patients undergoing hemiarthroplasties for femoral neck fractures were studied prospectively. Patients were blindly randomised to receive either a femoral component with proximal midshaft centraliser or distal centraliser. Both components were implanted following the manufacturer’s protocol. Postoperative true anteroposterior and lateral radiographs were made to assess the stem position. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in zones 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 in both anteroposterior and lateral radiographic measurements. DCP and PCD both have similar centralisation and cement mantle. Future studies should be done to evaluate their long-term effect.

Résumé

Objectif: un matériel permettant de bien centrer la prothèse a été utilisé de façon à avoir une prothèse en position neutre avec un manteau de ciment dont l’épaisseur doit être optimale aussi bien pour la partie proximale que distale. Le centralisateur DCD est comparé avec le matériel permettant de centraliser la prothèse PCD. Matériel et méthode: 30 patients consécutifs ont bénéficié d’une arthroplastie, après une fracture du col du fémur. L’étude a été prospective. Les patients ont bénéficié d’une randomisation en double aveugle de façon à recevoir soit un composant fémoral fixé par le centralisateur médio diaphysaire, soit un centralisateur distal. Les composants fémoraux ont été implantés selon les recommandations du fabriquant. Des radiographies face profil ont été réalisées de façon à évaluer la position de la queue de la prothèse. Résultats: il n’y a pas de différence significative entre les deux groupes dans les zones 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 et 7 que se soit sur les radios de face ou de profil. En conclusion, DCP et PCD ont, toutes les deux, une fonction de centralisation et d’organisation du manteau de ciment. Des études ultérieures seront nécessaires pour évaluer les effets à long terme de cette technique.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Anthony PP, Gie GA, Howie CR, Ling RSM (1990) Localised endosteal bone lysis in relation to the femoral components of cemented total hip arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Br 72:971–979

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Berger RA, Seel MJ, Wood K et al (1997) Effect of a centralizing device on cement mantle deficiencies and initial prosthetic alignment in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 12:434–443

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Charnley J (1979) Low friction arthroplasty of the hip. Theory and practice. Springer, New York, pp 66–90

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ebramzadeh E, Sarmiento A, McKellop HA et al (1994) The cement mantle in total hip arthroplasty. Analysis of long-term radiographic results. J Bone Joint Surg Am 76:77–87

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Goldberg BA, Al-Habbal G, Noble PC et al (1998) Proximal and distal femoral centralizers in modern cemented hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 349:163–173

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gruen TA, McNeice GM, Amstutz HC (1979) “Modes of failure” of cemented stem-type femoral components: a radiographic analysis of loosening. Clin Orthop Relat Res 141:17–27

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Huddleston HD (1988) Femoral lysis after cemented hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 3:285–297

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Johnston RC, Fitzgerald RH Jr, Harris WH et al (1990) Clinical and radiographic evaluation of total hip replacement. A standard system of terminology for reporting results. J Bone Joint Surg Am 72:161–168

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Kawate K, Ohmura T, Nakajima H et al (2001) Distal cement mantle thickness with a triangular distal centralizer inserted into the stem tip in cemented total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 16(8):998–1003

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Levy R, Noble P, Scheller A Jr, Tullos H, Turner R (1988) The clinical reproducibility of precise asymmetric femoral cement mantle for total hip replacement. Orthop Trans 12:591

    Google Scholar 

  11. Pazzaglia UE (1990) Pathology of the bone-cement interface in loosening of total hip replacement. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 109:83–88

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Søballe K, Christensen F (1988) Calcar resorption after total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 3:103–107

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Star MJ, Colwell CW, Kelman GJ et al (1994) Suboptimal (thin) distal cement mantle thickness as a contributory factor in total hip arthroplasty femoral component failure. A retrospective radiographic analysis favoring distal stem centralization. J Arthroplasty 9(2):143–149

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to N. Aydin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Aydin, N., Bezer, M., Akgulle, A.H. et al. Comparison of distal and proximal centralising devices in hip arthroplasty. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 33, 945–948 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-008-0610-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-008-0610-3

Keywords

Navigation