12. Barrack grading of cementing

#### 12.1. Introduction

This classification was proposed by Barrack et al. based-on review of 50 second generation cemented femoral stems [15].

[4] Hodgkinson JP, Shelley P, Wroblewski BM. The correlation between the roentgenographic appearance and operative findings at the bone-cement junction of the socket in Charnley low friction arthroplasties. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research. 1988 Mar;228:

Classifications Used in Total Hip Arthroplasty http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.77231 33

[5] Valle CJ, Paprosky WG. Classification and an algorithmic approach to the reconstruction of femoral deficiency in revision total hip arthroplasty. The Journal of Bone and Joint

[6] D'Antonio J, McCarthy JC, Bargar WL, Borden LS, Cappelo WN, Collis DK, Steinberg ME, Wedge JH. Classification of femoral abnormalities in total hip arthroplasty. Clinical Ortho-

[7] Dossick PH, Dorr LD, Gruen T, Saberi MT. Techniques for preoperative planning and postoperative evaluation of noncemented hip arthroplasty. Techniques in orthopaedics.

[8] Greidanus NV, Mitchell PA, Masri BA, Garbuz DS, Duncan CP. Principles of management and results of treating the fractured femur during and after total hip arthroplasty. Instruc-

[9] Brady OH, Garbuz DS, Masri BA, Duncan CP. The reliability and validity of the Vancouver classification of femoral fractures after hip replacement. The Journal of Arthroplasty.

[10] Rayan F, Dodd M, Haddad FS. European validation of the Vancouver classification of periprosthetic proximal femoral fractures. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British Vol-

[11] Tsukayama DT, Estrada R, Gustilo RB. Infection after total hip arthroplasty. A study of one hundred and six infections. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume.

[12] Brooker AF, Bowerman JW, Robinson RA, Riley LH Jr. Ectopic ossification following total hip replacement. Incidence and a method of classification. The Journal of Bone and Joint

[13] Toom A, Fischer K, Märtson A, Rips L, Haviko T. Inter-observer reliability in the assessment of heterotopic ossification: Proposal of a combined classification. International Orthopae-

[14] Vasileiadis GI, Itoigawa Y, Amanatullah DF, Pulido-Sierra L, Crenshaw JR, Huyber C, Taunton MJ, Kaufman KR. Intraobserver reliability and interobserver agreement in radiographic classification of heterotopic ossification. Orthopedics. 2017 Jan 24;40(1):e54-e58

[15] Barrack RL, Mulroy RD Jr, Harris WH. Improved cementing techniques and femoral component loosening in young patients with hip arthroplasty. A 12-year radiographic review. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British Volume (London). 1992 May;74(3):38

Surgery. American Volume. 2003;85-A(Suppl 4):1-6

paedics and Related Research. 1993 Nov;296:133-139

tional Course Lectures. 2003;52:309-322

ume (London). 2008 Dec;90(12):1576-1579

Surgery. American Volume. 1973 Dec;55(8):1629-1632

105-109

1991 Sep 1;6(3):1-6

2000 Jan;15(1):59-62

1996;78:512-523

dics. 2005 Jun;29(3):156-159

#### 12.2. Classification

Grade A: White-out with complete filling.

Grade B: Slight defects at the cement-bone interface.

Grade C: Defective cement mantle or radiolucency involving 50 to 99% of the cement-bone interface.

Grade D: 100% lucency or failure to cover the tip of the stem.

#### 12.3. Clinical applications

This classification helps in predicting the survivability of the implant based on the grade of cementing.

## Author details

Munis Ashraf

Address all correspondence to: munis6@gmail.com

KG Hospital, Coimbatore, India
