Sir,
We read this article with interest. The purpose of the study was to identify the factors causing high failure
rate of total hip replacement revision.
One of these was the surgeons’ false impression of stability of the
femoral stem, thus classifying Vancouver type B2 as B1. They subsequently
treated the fracture with plate fixation only and not revision. It would
be interesting to know what radiological criterion was used pre-operatively to classify the stability of the stem.1 If the decision was
coupled with intra-operative assessment, what factors were considered?
The data dates back to 1979, since when a number of modifications2
have taken place, both in cementing techniques and implant design (stems
and plates). Therefore, it raises the question of any correlation of
implant failure with these factors.
Was there any association between failure and the site of plate/s
placement?
Lastly, what was the post-operative weight bearing status of the
patients and was there any correlation between this and failure of
revision?
Y.R. Shah,
T.A. Syed,
Z. Saeed,
Z. Sadiq,
Trauma and Orthopaedics,
Milton Keynes General Hospital,
Milton Keynes, UK.
1. Gruen TA, McNeice GM, Amstutz HC. "Modes of failure" of cemented
stem-type femoral components: a radiographic analysis of loosening. Clin
Orthop Relat Res 1979;141:17–27.
2. McCaskie AW, Gregg PJ. Femoral cementing technique: current
trends and future developments. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 1994;76-B:176-7.