Literature DB >> 19828913

Initial experience with short Metha stem implantation.

Marek Synder1, Marek Drobniewski, Błazej Pruszczyński, Marcin Sibiński.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: One of the modern treatments of degenerative joint disease in young patients is hip replacement with the use of short stems. Possible advantages of stem application, in comparison to traditional procedures, include: a more physiological distribution of forces transferred through the proximal femur, prevention of stress shielding, saving more bone mass in the femoral neck and, possibly, minimally invasive surgery. The aim of the study was an analysis of early results and our own experiences with implantation of short stems.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty hip joints in 28 patients aged between 27 and 59 years were treated with short Metha stems. The follow-up period ranged from 6 to 16 months.
RESULTS: According to the Harris hip score, clinical status improved from 54 preoperatively to 97 among the patients evaluated 12 months after the operation. Radiological imaging revealed very good and rapid integration between implant and bone. No cases of stem loosening were observed. One patient had some osteolysis in the middle part of the femoral neck at 12 months post-operatively without any symptoms of loosening.
CONCLUSIONS: 1. Short Metha stems are worth recommending for young patients with advanced hip osteoarthritis because of their very good primary stabilization, allowing for early full weight bearing. 2. The operative technique is fairly complex and the support of intraoperative radiological imaging is recommended.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19828913

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ortop Traumatol Rehabil        ISSN: 1509-3492


  9 in total

1.  [Is shorter really better? : Philosophy of short stem prosthesis designs].

Authors:  J Jerosch
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 1.087

2.  Neck-preserving femoral stems.

Authors:  Karthig Rajakulendran; Richard E Field
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2012-09-07

3.  [Differences between short stem prostheses].

Authors:  J Jerosch
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 1.087

4.  Two- to 4-Year Followup of a Short Stem THA Construct: Excellent Fixation, Thigh Pain a Concern.

Authors:  Richard L Amendola; Devon D Goetz; Steve S Liu; John J Callaghan
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Medium-term comparison of results in obese patients and non-obese hip prostheses with Metha® short stem.

Authors:  Yves Chammaï; Michel Brax
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2014-12-24

6.  A prospective randomized radiographic and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometric study of migration and bone remodeling after implantation of two modern short-stemmed femoral prostheses.

Authors:  Volker Brinkmann; Florian Radetzki; Karl Stefan Delank; David Wohlrab; Alexander Zeh
Journal:  J Orthop Traumatol       Date:  2015-02-11

7.  Technical considerations and functional results in primary uncemented hip arthroplasty using short femoral stems through mini-invasive techniques.

Authors:  M Moga; M E Pogarasteanu
Journal:  J Med Life       Date:  2014-09-25

8.  Future of total hip arthroplasty with the Metha short stem in modern surgeries.

Authors:  Marek Drobniewski; Marek Synder; Marek Aleksander Synder; Magdalena Krasińska; Lukasz Olewnik; Andrzej Borowski
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-11-05       Impact factor: 4.379

Review 9.  Revision rate after short-stem total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review of 49 studies.

Authors:  Jakob van Oldenrijk; Jeroen Molleman; Michel Klaver; Rudolf W Poolman; Daniel Haverkamp
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2014-04-03       Impact factor: 3.717

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.