TY - JOUR
T1 - Femoral preparation in cemented total hip arthroplasty
T2 - reaming or broaching?
AU - DiGiovanni, C. W.
AU - Garvin, K. L.
AU - Pellicci, P. M.
PY - 1999
Y1 - 1999
N2 - Surgical techniques continue to be refined to improve the results of primary cemented total hip arthroplasty. Although there has been much research in the areas of cementation and implant design, little work has specifically addressed how bone preparation can be optimized on the femoral side. On the basis of available scientific data, it appears that the broach-only system has several potential advantages over the traditional ream-and-broach technique. Broaching is usually faster, leaves behind more bone stock, and may improve both microinterlock and macrointerlock. Additionally, the excess bone resulting from broaching without reaming does not seem to compromise fixation at the bone-cement interface. Such differences may become even more important as the indications for cemented hip arthroplasty broaden to include increasingly younger and more active patients, because revision in these individuals is likely. In most cases, reaming is probably counterproductive, although it may be advantageous when used to open the femoral canal, to prevent varus stem orientation, and to manage sclerosis or deformity of bone due to a preexisting hip disorder or the presence of internal fixation devices. Regardless of which method is chosen, good bone surface cleansing and cement penetration remain paramount. More studies comparing reamed and nonreamed preparation are necessary to resolve this controversial issue definitively.
AB - Surgical techniques continue to be refined to improve the results of primary cemented total hip arthroplasty. Although there has been much research in the areas of cementation and implant design, little work has specifically addressed how bone preparation can be optimized on the femoral side. On the basis of available scientific data, it appears that the broach-only system has several potential advantages over the traditional ream-and-broach technique. Broaching is usually faster, leaves behind more bone stock, and may improve both microinterlock and macrointerlock. Additionally, the excess bone resulting from broaching without reaming does not seem to compromise fixation at the bone-cement interface. Such differences may become even more important as the indications for cemented hip arthroplasty broaden to include increasingly younger and more active patients, because revision in these individuals is likely. In most cases, reaming is probably counterproductive, although it may be advantageous when used to open the femoral canal, to prevent varus stem orientation, and to manage sclerosis or deformity of bone due to a preexisting hip disorder or the presence of internal fixation devices. Regardless of which method is chosen, good bone surface cleansing and cement penetration remain paramount. More studies comparing reamed and nonreamed preparation are necessary to resolve this controversial issue definitively.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0033224498&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0033224498&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.5435/00124635-199911000-00001
DO - 10.5435/00124635-199911000-00001
M3 - Article
C2 - 11497488
AN - SCOPUS:0033224498
SN - 1067-151X
VL - 7
SP - 349
EP - 357
JO - The Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons
JF - The Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons
IS - 6
ER -