Literature DB >> 27260482

Ultrashort versus Conventional Anatomic Cementless Femoral Stems in the Same Patients Younger Than 55 Years.

Young-Hoo Kim1, Jang-Won Park2, Jun-Shik Kim2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Because the clinical and radiographic performance of an ultrashort anatomic cementless stem has been investigated in only two randomized controlled studies, well-designed trials should aim for a thorough comparison of the outcomes of ultrashort anatomic cementless and conventional anatomic cementless stems. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The purposes of this study were to compare (1) the clinical results, including Harris hip score, thigh pain, and WOMAC index score, (2) radiographic results, (3) bone mineral density; and (4) proportions of patients undergoing revision of a THA using an ultrashort anatomic cementless stem versus a conventional anatomic cementless stem in the same patients who underwent bilateral sequential THAs under the same anesthetic.
METHODS: Two hundred patients (mean age, 53 years; range, 26-54 years) who underwent bilateral sequential THAs received an ultrashort anatomic cementless stem in one hip and a conventional anatomic cementless stem in the contralateral hip. From January 2004 to December 2005, we performed 524 same-day bilateral short and conventional anatomic cementless THAs in 262 patients, of whom 212 (81%) participated in this study. Five patients were lost to followup before 2 years, five were lost between 2 to 10 years, and two were lost between 10 to 13 years, leaving 200 patients. Patients who had end-stage bilateral hip disease and were younger than 55 years were selected for inclusion. The predominant diagnoses were osteonecrosis (118 patients, 59%) and osteoarthritis (44 patients, 22%). One hundred thirty-eight were men and 62 were women. At the time of each followup, the patients were assessed clinically and radiographically. In addition, each patient completed the WOMAC and the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) activity scores. The minimum followup was 10 years (mean, 11.8 years; range, 10-13 years). Followups were done in person, with all images and followup clinic notes. Based on the power analysis, we estimated a sample size of 178 hips was needed in each group to detect a 3-point difference in the Harris hip score with 80% power.
RESULTS: At the latest followup, there were no differences between the two groups regarding the mean Harris hip scores (94 versus 94 points; p = 0.189), mean WOMAC scores (17 versus 16 points; p = 0.191), or mean UCLA activity scores (9 versus 9 points; p = 0.381). Two patients in the ultrashort stem group and one patient in the conventional stem group had severe (9 points) thigh pain, and 30 patients (15%) in the conventional stem group had mild thigh pain (2 or 3 points) after vigorous exercise. Bone mineral density in the ultrashort and conventional stem groups, respectively, was greater in the ultrashort stem group than in the conventional stem group. Bone mineral density in Zone 1 at 12 years was 3.29 versus 1.88 g/cm(2) (p = 0.021), and 2.97 versus 0.91 g/m(2) in Zone 7 (p = 0.001). With the numbers available, there were no differences between the stem designs in terms of the proportion undergoing revision (one hip, 0.5%, in the short-stem group versus one hip, 0.5%, in the conventional group; p = 1.881).
CONCLUSIONS: At followup into the second decade, ultrashort stems showed no differences from conventional cementless stems in terms of validated outcomes scores or fixation, although less stress shielding was observed. Reduction of stress shielding may reduce the long-term risk of periprosthetic fracture, but this was not shown in our study. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, therapeutic study.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27260482      PMCID: PMC4965377          DOI: 10.1007/s11999-016-4902-4

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


  40 in total

1.  A ten- to 15-year follow-up of the cementless spotorno stem.

Authors:  P R Aldinger; S J Breusch; M Lukoschek; H Mau; V Ewerbeck; M Thomsen
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2003-03

2.  Long-term results of a hydroxyapatite-coated femoral component in total hip replacement: a 15- to 21-year follow-up study.

Authors:  S S Rajaratnam; C Jack; A Tavakkolizadeh; M D George; R J Fletcher; M Hankins; J A N Shepperd
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2008-01

3.  High survival of uncemented proximally porous-coated titanium alloy femoral stems in osteoporotic bone.

Authors:  John B Meding; Matthew R Galley; Merrill A Ritter
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2009-09-01       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  Effect of rotation on periprosthetic bone mineral measurements in a hip phantom.

Authors:  E S Mortimer; L Rosenthall; I Paterson; J D Bobyn
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1996-03       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Patterns of osteolysis around total hip components inserted with and without cement.

Authors:  B Zicat; C A Engh; E Gokcen
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1995-03       Impact factor: 5.284

6.  Incidence of thigh pain after uncemented total hip arthroplasty as a function of femoral stem size.

Authors:  E J Vresilovic; W J Hozack; R H Rothman
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 4.757

7.  A conservative femoral replacement for total hip arthroplasty. A prospective study.

Authors:  B F Morrey; R A Adams; M Kessler
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2000-09

8.  A prospective short-term outcome study of a short metaphyseal fitting total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Young-Hoo Kim; Jun-Shik Kim; Jong-Hwan Joo; Jang-Won Park
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2011-03-23       Impact factor: 4.757

9.  Assessing activity in joint replacement patients.

Authors:  C A Zahiri; T P Schmalzried; E S Szuszczewicz; H C Amstutz
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 4.757

10.  Survivorship of a low-stiffness extensively porous-coated femoral stem at 10 years.

Authors:  Mark A Hartzband; Andrew H Glassman; Victor M Goldberg; Louis R Jordan; Roy D Crowninshield; Kevin B Fricka; Louis C Jordan
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2009-06-26       Impact factor: 4.176

View more
  17 in total

1.  Long-term outcomes of total hip arthroplasty in patients younger than 55 years: a systematic review of the contemporary literature

Authors:  Xin Yu Mei; Ying Jia Gong; Oleg Safir; Allan Gross; Paul Kuzyk
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2019-08-01       Impact factor: 2.089

2.  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

3.  Mid-term results of short-stem total hip arthroplasty in patients with Crowe type I and II developmental dysplasia of the hip.

Authors:  Yingyong Suksathien; Thanut Tippimanchai; Tossaporn Akkrasaeng; Chakkrit Ruangboon
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2020-09-01

4.  Mid-term results of short versus conventional cementless femoral stems in patients with bilateral osteonecrosis of the femoral head.

Authors:  Yingyong Suksathien; Jithayut Suarjui; Chakkrit Ruangboon; Tossaporn Akkrasaeng
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2021-03-12

5.  Short versus conventional stem in cementless total hip arthroplasty : An evidence-based approach with registry data of mid-term survival.

Authors:  Arnd Steinbrück; Alexander W Grimberg; Johanna Elliott; Oliver Melsheimer; Volkmar Jansson
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2021-03-05       Impact factor: 1.087

6.  Uncemented short stems in primary total hip arthroplasty: The state of the art.

Authors:  Mattia Loppini; Guido Grappiolo
Journal:  EFORT Open Rev       Date:  2018-05-09

7.  No Clinically Important Differences in Thigh Pain or Bone Loss Between Short Stems and Conventional-length Stems in THA: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Seok-Hyung Won; Jung-Wee Park; Young-Kyun Lee; Yong-Chan Ha; Kyung-Hoi Koo
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2021-04-01       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  Comparison of short-stem versus conventional stem for hip arthroplasty in patients younger than 60 years: 7-14 years follow-up.

Authors:  Arnaldo Sousa; João Vale; Sara Diniz; Pedro Neves; Joaquim Ramos; Rafaela Coelho
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2021-06-07

Review 9.  Periprosthetic bone remodeling of short cementless femoral stems in primary total hip arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials.

Authors:  Shuang G Yan; Di Li; Shuai Yin; Xingyi Hua; Jian Tang; Florian Schmidutz
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2017-11       Impact factor: 1.817

10.  Are short-stem prostheses superior to conventional stem prostheses in primary total hip arthroplasty? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Authors:  Hao-Dong Liang; Wei-Yi Yang; Jian-Ke Pan; He-Tao Huang; Ming-Hui Luo; Ling-Feng Zeng; Jun Liu
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-09-21       Impact factor: 2.692

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.