Femoral preparation in cemented total hip arthroplasty: reaming or broaching?

C. W. DiGiovanni, K. L. Garvin, P. M. Pellicci

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

19 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)349-357
Number of pages9
JournalThe Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons
Volume7
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 1999

Fingerprint

Thigh
Arthroplasty
Hip
Bone and Bones
Internal Fixators
Cementation
Bone Cements
Preexisting Condition Coverage
Sclerosis
Research

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

Cite this

Femoral preparation in cemented total hip arthroplasty : reaming or broaching? / DiGiovanni, C. W.; Garvin, K. L.; Pellicci, P. M.

In: The Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Vol. 7, No. 6, 01.01.1999, p. 349-357.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{592e4557d5e7469d819941e1bc400740,
title = "Femoral preparation in cemented total hip arthroplasty: reaming or broaching?",
abstract = "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.",
author = "DiGiovanni, {C. W.} and Garvin, {K. L.} and Pellicci, {P. M.}",
year = "1999",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.5435/00124635-199911000-00001",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "7",
pages = "349--357",
journal = "Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons",
issn = "1067-151X",
publisher = "American Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons",
number = "6",

}

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 - 1999/1/1

Y1 - 1999/1/1

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

VL - 7

SP - 349

EP - 357

JO - Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons

JF - Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons

SN - 1067-151X

IS - 6

ER -