Literature DB >> 22262250

Biomechanical reconstruction of the hip: comparison between modular short-stem hip arthroplasty and conventional total hip arthroplasty.

Florian Schmidutz1, Marc Beirer, Patrick Weber, Farhad Mazoochian, Andreas Fottner, Volkmar Jansson.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Short-stem hip arthroplasty preserves femoral bone stock which includes the femoral neck. This implies that the stem has to follow the anatomy of the femoral neck. Therefore, it has been questioned whether biomechanical reconstruction of the hip can be safely achieved with SHA.
METHODS: Biomechanical reconstruction of the hip was analysed for 50 modular short-stem hip arthroplasties (SHA) and compared to 50 conventional total hip arthroplasties (THA). Biomechanical parameters were analysed on pre- and postoperative pelvic overviews and compared to those of the contralateral side.
RESULTS: The position of the acetabular cup (vertical and horizontal hip centre of rotation) changed slightly and was comparable for both groups. Horizontal femoral offset increased more in SHA (6.2 mm) than in THA (2.0 mm). Compared to the contralateral side it was significantly greater after SHA (+3.6 mm) but almost balanced after THA (-0.2 mm). Limb length increased with both procedures (8.0 mm SHA, 9.1 mm THA), but showed a significantly greater discrepancy after SHA (3.3 mm) as compared to THA (1.3 mm). According to the different implant designs, the stem-shaft axis showed a wider varus-valgus range for SHA (6.2° varus to 8.8° valgus) than for THA (2.6° varus to 3.3° valgus).
CONCLUSION: Horizontal femoral offset increased more with modular SHA than with conventional THA, but was within a beneficial range. Restoration of limb length appears more difficult in SHA and has a tendency to prolong limb length, which is probably related to the higher femoral resection level. This should be taken into consideration when considering SHA for a patient as well as during implantation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22262250      PMCID: PMC3385910          DOI: 10.1007/s00264-011-1477-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Orthop        ISSN: 0341-2695            Impact factor:   3.075


  25 in total

1.  The anatomic basis for the concept of lateralized femoral stems: a frontal plane radiographic study of the proximal femur.

Authors:  P Massin; L Geais; E Astoin; M Simondi; F Lavaste
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 4.757

2.  Bone remodelling around the Metha short stem in total hip arthroplasty: a prospective dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry study.

Authors:  Matthias Lerch; Annelene von der Haar-Tran; Henning Windhagen; Bernd A Behrens; Patrick Wefstaedt; Christina M Stukenborg-Colsman
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2011-09-21       Impact factor: 3.075

3.  Soft tissue balancing: the hip.

Authors:  Robert B Bourne; Cecil H Rorabeck
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 4.757

4.  The biomechanical results of total hip resurfacing arthroplasty.

Authors:  Mauricio Silva; Kee Haeng Lee; Christian Heisel; Mylene A Dela Rosa; Thomas P Schmalzried
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 5.284

5.  Comparison of offset in Birmingham hip resurfacing and hybrid total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  J M Loughead; D Chesney; J P Holland; A W McCaskie
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2005-02

6.  Reconstructed hip joint position and abductor muscle strength after total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Isao Asayama; Samatchai Chamnongkich; Kathy J Simpson; Tracy L Kinsey; Ormonde M Mahoney
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 4.757

7.  Biomechanical reconstruction of the hip: a randomised study comparing total hip resurfacing and total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  J Girard; M Lavigne; P-A Vendittoli; A G Roy
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2006-06

8.  Effect of femoral component offset on polyethylene wear in total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  D P Sakalkale; P F Sharkey; K Eng; W J Hozack; R H Rothman
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  Total hip arthroplasty: the relationship between posterolateral reconstruction, abductor muscle strength, and femoral offset.

Authors:  T Yamaguchi; M Naito; I Asayama; T Ishiko
Journal:  J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong)       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 1.118

10.  Effect of femoral offset on range of motion and abductor muscle strength after total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  B J McGrory; B F Morrey; T D Cahalan; K N An; M E Cabanela
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1995-11
View more
  22 in total

1.  Short stems reproduce femoral offset better than standard stems in total hip arthroplasty: a case-control study.

Authors:  Roger Erivan; Anne-Sophie Muller; Guillaume Villatte; Stéphane Millerioux; Aurélien Mulliez; Stéphane Boisgard; Stéphane Descamps
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2019-06-28       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  Periprosthetic hip infection treated with two-stage stage-one Select Spacer- complication rate and restoration of anatomy.

Authors:  Josephine Olsen Kipp; Martin Lamm; Kjeld Søballe; Stig Storgaard Jakobsen
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2019-09-11

3.  How to best measure femoral length and lateralisation after total hip arthroplasty on antero-posterior pelvic radiographs.

Authors:  Nicolas Bonin; Laurent Jacquot; Laurent Boulard; Patrick Reynaud; Mo Saffarini; Sébastien Lustig
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2016-03-01       Impact factor: 3.075

4.  Comparison of 5-year postoperative results between standard-length stems and short stems in one-stage bilateral total hip arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Masanobu Hirao; Kazumasa Miyatake; Daisuke Koga; Ryohei Takada; Gaku Koyano; Atsushi Okawa; Tetsuya Jinno
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2020-11-10

5.  Offset and anteversion reconstruction after cemented and uncemented total hip arthroplasty: an evaluation with the low-dose EOS system comparing two- and three-dimensional imaging.

Authors:  Jean Yves Lazennec; Adrien Brusson; Folinais Dominique; Marc-Antoine Rousseau; Aidin Eslam Pour
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2014-12-20       Impact factor: 3.075

6.  High Risk of Failure With Bimodular Femoral Components in THA.

Authors:  Aidin Eslam Pour; Robert Borden; Takayuki Murayama; Mary Groll-Brown; J David Blaha
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-09-01       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  Interest of short implants in hip arthroplasty for osteonecrosis of the femoral head: comparative study "uncemented short" vs "cemented conventional" femoral stems.

Authors:  Mehdi Miladi; Benoît Villain; Nasser Mebtouche; Thierry Bégué; Jean-Charles Aurégan
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2018-05-15       Impact factor: 3.075

8.  Femoral neck preservation with a short hip stem produced with powder manufacturing: mid-term results of a consecutive case series.

Authors:  Marco Schiraldi; Manuel Bondi; Lodovico Renzi Brivio
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2019-01-28

9.  Comparison of open reduction and internal fixation and primary total hip replacement for osteoporotic acetabular fractures: a retrospective clinical study.

Authors:  Sebastian P Boelch; Martin C Jordan; Rainer H Meffert; Hendrik Jansen
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2016-08-10       Impact factor: 3.075

10.  A low-volume surgeon is an independent risk factor for leg length discrepancy after primary total hip arthroplasty: a case-control study.

Authors:  Yuji Kishimoto; Hiroko Suda; Takahiro Kishi; Toshiaki Takahashi
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2019-10-31       Impact factor: 3.075

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.