| Literature DB >> 21486725 |
C Zilkens1, S Djalali, B Bittersohl, T Kälicke, C N Kraft, R Krauspe, Marcus Jäger.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the initial acetabular implant stability and late acetabular implant migration in press fit cups combined with screw fixation of the acetabular component in order to answer the question whether screws are necessary for the fixation of the acetabular component in cementless primary total hip arthroplasty. One hundred and seven hips were available for follow-up after primary THA using a cementless, porous-coated acetabular component. A total of 631 standardized radiographs were analyzed digitally by the "single-film-x-ray-analysis" method (EBRA). One hundred and one (94.4 %) acetabular components did not show significant migration of more than 1 mm. Six (5.6%) implants showed migration of more than 1 mm. Statistical analysis did not reveal preoperative patterns that would identify predictors for future migration. Our findings suggest that the use of screw fixation for cementless porous-coated acetabular components for primary THA does not prevent cup migration.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21486725 PMCID: PMC3352209 DOI: 10.1186/2047-783x-16-3-127
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur J Med Res ISSN: 0949-2321 Impact factor: 2.175
Figure 3. One box represents one implant. 105 implants (98.1%) show no significant horizontal migration in contrast to two implants (1.9%, black boxes for implants no 61 and 94) with significant horizontal migration. b: y-migration: vertical migration of the study population. One box represents one implant. 102 implants (95.3%) show no significant vertical migration in contrast to 5 implants (4.7%, black boxes for implants no 16, 27, 38, 61 and 94). c: inclination: cup inclination of the study population. One box represents one implant. 104 implants (97.2%) show no significant change of inclination (> 1.7°) in contrast to .3 implants (2.8%, black boxes for implants no 41, 94 and 61).d: anteversion: cup anteversion of the study population. One box represents one implant. 106 implants (99.1%) show no significant change of anteversion (> 1.7°0) in contrast to 1 implant (0.9%, black box for implant no 94).
Migration pattern of the migrated cups.
| Implant Number | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17 | 27 | 38 | 41 | 61 | 94 | |
| 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.8 | |
| 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.6 | 0.2 | 0.0 | ||
| 0.1 | ||||||
| 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| 62.3 | 64.3 | 54.1 | 38.9 | 38.9 | 57.1 | |
| + 0.0 | + 0.0 | - 0.3 | ||||
| 5.9 | 20.5 | 18.0 | 18.0 | 3.4 | 9.9 | |
| + 0.3 | + 0.1 | + 0.1 | + 0.8 | + 0.9 | ||
| 8 | 12 | 13 | 2 | 17 | 2 | |
| 14 | 6 | 13 | 4 | 21 | 10 | |
| No | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | |
| 14 | 36 | 25 | 69 | 21 | 10 | |
Comparison of the two groups of cups with migration > 1 mm and cups with migration < 1 mm.
| Migration > 1 mm | Migration < 1 mm | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6 | 101 | |||
| 2 | 34 | |||
| 4 | 62 | |||
| 4 | 51 | |||
| 2 | 50 | |||
| 64.5 | ± 23.9 | 62.9 | ± 15.4 | |
| 162 | ± 6.0 | 168 | ± 10.0 | |
| 76.8 | ± 20.3 | 66.9 | ± 18.0 | |
| 29.7 | ± 9.4 | 27.2 | ± 5.7 | |
| 5 | 98 | |||
| 2.5 | ± 1.8 | 2.6 | ± 1.7 | |
| 6 | 68 | |||
| 0 | 33 | |||
| 53.0 | ± 5.5 | 53.3 | ± 3.3 | |
| 31.3 | ± 1.6 | 30.8 | ± 2.1 | |
| 2.5 | ± 1.2 | 2.0 | ± 0.3 | |
| 25.0 | ± 8.3 | 33.2 | ± 6.6 | |
| 52.6 | ± 11.2 | 39.2 | ± 7.3 | |
| 12.6 | ± 7.2 | 16.7 | ± 5.6 | |
Note that there was no statistically significant difference between the groups.