Literature DB >> 19727992

Durability of second-generation extensively porous-coated stems in patients age 50 and younger.

Jennifer A Moyer1, Catherine M Metz, John J Callaghan, David W Hennessy, Steve S Liu.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: Early versions of uncemented femoral total hip stems were often associated with thigh pain thought to be due to micromotion between the implant and bone in the distal uncoated regions. An extensively coated stem was introduced in 1992 to reduce that risk. We therefore asked whether second-generation extensively porous-coated cementless femoral stems in patients younger than 50 years of age would (1) be durable in terms of revisions; (2) provide high functional scores and reduce thigh pain; and (3) show radiographic signs of durability, including a reduction in stress shielding. We prospectively followed all 100 patients (115 hips) age 50 and younger treated with primary cementless total hip arthroplasties using a second-generation extensively porous-coated femoral stem between June 1994 and December 1999. The average age was 39.6 years (range, 17-50 years). The stems were mated to cementless acetabular components. Ninety patients were followed for a minimum of 5 years (mean, 8.6 years; range, 5-10 years). One stem was revised after a periprosthetic fracture. None were revised for loosening and all stems demonstrated bony ingrowth at last followup. No acetabular shell was revised for loosening and none was radiographically loose. Six acetabular liners were revised for wear (three each were 22-mm and 26-mm heads). This second-generation extensively porous-coated stem was durable at 5- to 10-year followup in this young active population. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19727992      PMCID: PMC2807011          DOI: 10.1007/s11999-009-1062-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.176


  17 in total

1.  Second-generation porous-coated cementless total hip arthroplasties have high survival.

Authors:  Christopher J Chen; John S Xenos; James P McAuley; Anthony Young; Charles A Engh
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Clinical and radiographic evaluation of total hip replacement. A standard system of terminology for reporting results.

Authors:  R C Johnston; R H Fitzgerald; W H Harris; R Poss; M E Müller; C B Sledge
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1990-02       Impact factor: 5.284

3.  Roentgenographic assessment of the biologic fixation of porous-surfaced femoral components.

Authors:  C A Engh; P Massin; K E Suthers
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1990-08       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  Extensively coated femoral components in young patients.

Authors:  J L Kronick; M L Barba; W G Paprosky
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1997-11       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Clinical and radiographic results of cementless AML total hip arthroplasty in young patients.

Authors:  O A Nercessian; W H Wu; H Sarkissian
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 4.757

6.  Primary uncemented total hip arthroplasty in patients <40 years old: 10- to 14-year results using first-generation proximally porous-coated implants.

Authors:  G P Duffy; D J Berry; C Rowland; M E Cabanela
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 4.757

7.  Total hip arthroplasty in young patients. 8- to 13-year results using an uncemented stem.

Authors:  J R McLaughlin; K R Lee
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  Ten-year results with hydroxyapatite-coated total hip femoral components in patients less than fifty years old. A concise follow-up of a previous report.

Authors:  William N Capello; James A D'Antonio; Judy R Feinberg; Michael T Manley
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 5.284

Review 9.  Total hip arthroplasty in patients 50 years and younger.

Authors:  James P McAuley; Edward S Szuszczewicz; Anthony Young; Charles A Engh
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  Femoral fixation in primary total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  C A Engh; W J Culpepper
Journal:  Orthopedics       Date:  1997-09       Impact factor: 1.390

View more
  6 in total

1.  Custom total hip arthroplasty in skeletal dysplasia.

Authors:  Liza Osagie; Mark Figgie; Mathias Bostrom
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2011-07-13       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  Bousquet dual mobility socket for patient under fifty years old. More than twenty year follow-up of one hundred and thirty one hips.

Authors:  Remi Philippot; Thomas Neri; Bertrand Boyer; Brice Viard; Frederic Farizon
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2017-01-16       Impact factor: 3.075

3.  Stable fixation of short-stem femoral implants in patients 70 years and older.

Authors:  Ronak M Patel; Matthew C Smith; Chase C Woodward; S David Stulberg
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  A concise minimum eight year follow-up of proximally porous-coated tapered titanium femoral stem in primary total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Benjamin Beecher; Philip Glassner; Henrik Malchau; Young-Min Kwon
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2012-03-14       Impact factor: 3.075

5.  Are younger patients undergoing THA appropriately characterized as active?

Authors:  James A Keeney; Ryan M Nunley; Geneva R Baca; John C Clohisy
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-09-23       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  Long-term results of the custom- made hip endoprostheses Evolution K® and Adaptiva®: A prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Steffen Axt; Andreas Kirschniak; Lena Axt; Manuel Braun; Christian Beltzer; Carmen Leichtle; Ulf Leichtle
Journal:  Orthop Rev (Pavia)       Date:  2021-04-07
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.