Cemented versus cementless endoprostheses for lower limb salvage surgery

E. Pala, A. F. Mavrogenis, A. Angelini, E. R. Henderson, G. Douglas Letson, Pietro Ruggieri

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Purpose: To determine the survival and failures of cemented vs cementless endoprostheses. Methods: We retrospectively studied 232 patients treated with lower limb salvage surgery and reconstruction using cementless and cemented endoprostheses from 2002 to 2007. We compared survival and failures of the endoprostheses regarding age, gender, body mass index (BMI), diagnosis, site of reconstruction, radiation therapy, chemotherapy, and stem fixation. Results: The mean patient follow-up was 28 months (median 24; range 12-84). The overall survival of cemented and cementless endoprostheses at 60 months was 64 and 78%, respectively (p=0.0078). Survival at 60 months of cemented and cementless endoprostheses to infection was 68 and 82%, respectively (p=0.0248). Survival of cemented and cementless endoprostheses to aseptic loosening at 60 months was 94 and 96%, respectively (p=0.1493). The only significant univariate and multivariate predictor of survival was the cementless type of stem fixation. Conclusion: Cementless endoprostheses have higher overall survival and survival to infection compared to cemented endoprostheses. Survival to aseptic loosening is not different. Stem fixation is the only significant variable for survival.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)496-503
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of B.U.ON.
Volume18
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - Apr 2013

Keywords

  • Apoptosis
  • Euphorbia lunulata Bge
  • Hepatoma
  • HepG2 cells

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Cancer Research
  • Hematology
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Cemented versus cementless endoprostheses for lower limb salvage surgery'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this