Literature DB >> 11061455

Long-term survival of the T-28 versus the TR-28 cemented total hip arthroplasties.

J B Meding1, J M Nassif, M A Ritter.   

Abstract

Between 1974 and 1980, 550 total hip arthroplasties (THAs) (479 patients) were performed using T-28 and TR-28 cemented prostheses (TR-28 is shot-blast chrome and T-28 is polished stainless steel). There were 379 cemented THAs in 321 patients in the T-28 group and 171 cemented THAs in 158 patients in the TR-28 group. Average follow-up of the patients still alive at the end of the study was 20.96 years in the T-28 group and 17.54 years in the TR-28 group. When considering failure as revision of the hip for aseptic acetabular loosening, there were 36 (9.5%) failures in the T-28 group and 12 (7%) failures in the TR-28 group. This difference was statistically significant (P = .0132). When considering failure as radiographic acetabular loosening with or without radiographic femoral loosening, there were 52 failed acetabula (13.7%) in the T-28 group and 18 failed acetabula (10.5%) in the TR-28 group. These differences were not statistically significant. When considering failure as revision for aseptic femoral loosening with or without acetabular component loosening, there were 42 failures (11.1%) in the T-28 group and 22 failures (12.8%) in the TR-28 group. This difference was not statistically significant. When considering failure as radiographic femoral loosening with or without acetabular component loosening, there were 42 failures (11.1%) in the T-28 group and 27 failures (15.8%) in the TR-28 group. This difference was statistically significant for log-rank test (P = .0318) and Wilcoxon's test (P = .0083). Surface finish may be an important contributor to the survival of cemented femoral stems.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2000        PMID: 11061455     DOI: 10.1054/arth.2000.9319

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Arthroplasty        ISSN: 0883-5403            Impact factor:   4.757


  5 in total

1.  The relationship between stem subsidence and improvement in the radiolucency in polished tapered stems.

Authors:  Ayumi Kaneuji; Tanzo Sugimori; Toru Ichiseki; Kiyokazu Fukui; Kengo Yamada; Tadami Matsumoto
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2006-04-14       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  Cementless femoral prostheses cost more to implant than cemented femoral prostheses.

Authors:  Aasis Unnanuntana; Apostolos Dimitroulias; Michael P Bolognesi; Katherine L Hwang; Stuart B Goodman; Randall E Marcus
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2008-09-10       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  Comparison of periprosthetic bone remodeling after implantation of anatomic and tapered cementless femoral stems in total hip arthroplasty: A prospective cohort study protocol.

Authors:  Xiang-Dong Wu; Yu Chen; Zhang-Yu Wang; Yu-Jian Li; Zheng-Lin Zhu; Yu-Zhang Tao; Hong Chen; Qiang Cheng; Wei Huang
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2018-09       Impact factor: 1.889

4.  Stem subsidence of polished and rough double-taper stems: in vitro mechanical effects on the cement-bone interface.

Authors:  Ayumi Kaneuji; Kengo Yamada; Kenichi Hirosaki; Masahiro Takano; Tadami Matsumoto
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 3.717

5.  The influence of cement thickness on stem subsidence and cement creep in a collarless polished tapered stem: When are thick cement mantles detrimental?

Authors:  E Takahashi; A Kaneuji; R Tsuda; Y Numata; T Ichiseki; K Fukui; N Kawahara
Journal:  Bone Joint Res       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 5.853

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.