Literature DB >> 30893234

Femoral Bone Remodeling in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty with Use of Modular Compared with Monoblock Tapered Fluted Titanium Stems: The Role of Stem Length and Stiffness.

Yong Huang1, Hongyi Shao1, Yixin Zhou1, Jianming Gu1, Hao Tang1, Dejin Yang1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: To our knowledge, no previous studies have compared periprosthetic bone remodeling around monoblock versus modular tapered fluted titanium stems with different stem length and thickness.
METHODS: A retrospective comparative study was performed on 139 consecutive total hip arthroplasties (THAs) revised with a tapered fluted modular titanium stem and 114 consecutive THAs revised with a tapered fluted monoblock titanium stem. The latest follow-up radiographs were compared with immediate postoperative radiographs to assess bone restoration in residual osteolytic areas, femoral stress-shielding, spot-welds, and radiolucent lines. Diameter and medullary canal filling of the 2 stems were measured.
RESULTS: More patients in the monoblock group demonstrated osseous restoration than in the modular group (p = 0.009), and the modular stem exerted more severe stress-shielding on the femur (p < 0.001). Stem tip spot-welds developed in 88.5% of modular stems compared with 47.4% of the monoblock stems (p < 0.001). Spot-welds developed in 38.8% of modular stems at the modular junction. Partial or circumferential radiolucent lines were observed at the proximal segment of 30.9% of modular stems, compared with 14.0% of monoblock stems (p = 0.002).
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the longer and thinner monoblock stems, modular stems had less proximal osseous restoration in residual osteolytic areas and more severe femoral stress-shielding, stem tip spot-welds, and radiolucent lines around the stems, which were stiffer and had a shorter distal section. The stem diameter and stiffness (which were influenced by stem length, curvature, and modularity) determined bone remodeling patterns. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30893234     DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.18.00442

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am        ISSN: 0021-9355            Impact factor:   5.284


  6 in total

1.  Femoral revision for periprosthetic fracture in total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Luke G Menken; Jose A Rodriguez
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2019-12-14

2.  Minimum ten-year results in revision total hip arthroplasty using titanium fully porous long stem.

Authors:  Masahiro Hasegawa; Shine Tone; Yohei Naito; Hiroki Wakabayashi; Akihiro Sudo
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2021-04-07       Impact factor: 3.075

3.  Restoration of Proximal Femoral Anatomy during Total Hip Arthroplasty for High Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip: An Original Technique.

Authors:  Kerong Wu; Xianzuo Zhang; Min Chen; Xifu Shang
Journal:  Orthop Surg       Date:  2020-02       Impact factor: 2.071

4.  Differences between proximal bone remodeling in femoral revisions for aseptic loosening and periprosthetic fractures using the Wagner SL stem.

Authors:  Gábor Friebert; Csaba Gombár; András Bozó; Ilona Polyák; Ádám Brzózka; Krisztián Sisák
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2021-02-17       Impact factor: 2.362

5.  Comparison of Bone Remodeling Between Collum Femoris-Preserving Stems and Ribbed Stems in 1-Stage Bilateral Total Hip Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Zeming Liu; Bo Liu; Sikai Liu; Mengnan Li; Xiao Chen; Yongtai Han
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2020-05-15

6.  Bone restoration after revision hip arthroplasty with femoral bone defects using extensively porous-coated stems with cortical strut allografts.

Authors:  Zichuan Ding; Tingxian Ling; Ping Mou; Duan Wang; Kai Zhou; Zongke Zhou
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2020-05-27       Impact factor: 2.359

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.