Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
BACKGROUND: In revision hip arthroplasty, changing a cemented stem is a challenging procedure, as a femoral window is often necessary to achieve total cement removal. The aim of this biomechanical study was to compare the stability of different locations for a proximal femoral window. METHODS: Thirty-six macerated human cadaver femora were assigned to one of the six groups: ventral window with square or rounded corners; lateral window with square or rounded corners; and dorsal window with square or rounded corners. Starting at the middle of the lesser trochanter, a window 1.6 × 10 cm in size was sawed in a distal direction. The biomechanical properties of the femora were measured using a materials testing machine in axial loading at a fixed displacement rate of 20 mm/min. FINDINGS: The mean failure strength did not differ significantly between the groups (ventral window: square corners 6688 N, rounded corners 5391 N; lateral window: square corners 2889 N, rounded corners 4402 N; dorsal window: square corners 5082 N, rounded corners 3626 N) (P = 0.08). The number of fractures through the window differed significantly between the groups (ventral window: square corners 3, rounded corners 0; lateral window: square corners 5, rounded corners 5; dorsal window: square corners 5, rounded corners 2) (P = 0.01). INTERPRETATION: Lateral locations of the proximal femoral window were associated with the largest number of fractures through the window, and ventral locations with the smallest number. Surgeons may therefore consider using a ventral window when changing a cemented stem in revision hip arthroplasty.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Trost et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: