| Literature DB >> 30995903 |
Georgios Gkagkalis1,2, Patrick Goetti3, Sabine Mai4, Ingmar Meinecke5, Näder Helmy6, Dominique Bosson2, Karl Philipp Kutzner7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Due to its bone preserving philosophy, short-stem total hip arthroplasty (THA) has primarily been recommended for young and active patients. However, there may be benefits for elderly patients given a less invasive operative technique due to the short curved implant design. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes as well as perioperative complications of a calcar-guided short stem between a young (< 60 years) and a geriatric (> 75 years) population.Entities:
Keywords: Age; Elderly; Optimys; Short stem; Total hip arthroplasty; Young
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30995903 PMCID: PMC6472082 DOI: 10.1186/s12877-019-1123-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Geriatr ISSN: 1471-2318 Impact factor: 3.921
Demographics of the two study groups
| Young | Elderly | |
|---|---|---|
| Total number of hips | 261 (229 patients) | 139 (131 patients) |
| Gender | ||
| Men | 150 (57.5) | 63 (45.3) |
| Women | 111 (42.5) | 76 (54.7) |
| Age at surgery (years) | 52.1 (24.3–59.9) | 79.1 (75.0–91.3) |
| Indication for surgery | ||
| Primary osteoarthritis | 166 (63.6) | 112 (80.6) |
| Secondary osteoarthritis | 27 (10.3) | 18 (12.9) |
| Inflammatory arthritis | 4 (1.5) | 2 (1.4) |
| Avascular necrosis of the femoral head | 24 (9.2) | 5 (3.6) |
| Fracture | 0 (0.0) | 1 (0.7) |
| Congenital dysplasia of the hip | 40 (15.3) | 1 (0.7) |
| Surgical approach | ||
| Direct anterior | 42 (16.1) | 20 (14.4) |
| Anterolateral | 211 (80.8) | 117 (84.2) |
| Direct lateral | 6 (2.3) | 1 (0.7) |
| Posterolateral | 1 (0.4) | 0 (0.0) |
| Transgluteal with GT osteotomy | 1 (0.4) | 1 (0.7) |
N (%)
Fig. 1The optimys short stem (Mathys Ltd., Bettlach, Switzerland)
Fig. 2Study Flowchart
Distribution of preoperative Dorr types
| Young | Elderly | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Preoperative Dorr type | |||
| A | 169 (64.8) | 27 (19.4) | < 0.0001 |
| B | 91 (34.9) | 104 (74.8) | |
| C | 1 (0.4) | 8 (5.8) | |
| Total | 261 (100.0) | 139 (100.0) | |
N (%)
Clinical and radiological outcome at last follow up
| Young | Elderly | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Clinical outcome | |||
| Harris Hip Score | |||
| Preoperative | 47.6 (16.1) | 40.9 (16.8) | |
| Last follow-up | 96.8 (7.8) | 91.0 (13.1) | |
| VAS rest pain | |||
| Preoperative | 4.7 (2.5) | 4.5 (2.7) | |
| Last follow-up | 0.2 (0.9) | 0.1 (0.6) | |
| VAS load pain | |||
| Preoperative | 7.5 (1.9) | 7.7 (1.8) | |
| Last follow-up | 0.6 (1.2) | 0.5 (1.3) | |
| VAS satisfaction | |||
| Preoperative | 2.5 (2.3) | 2.9 (2.5) | |
| Last follow-up | 9.6 (1.0) | 9.4 (1.4) | |
| Radiological outcome | |||
| Bone resorption | |||
| No | 197 (84.9) | 99 (86.8) | |
| Yes | 35 (15.1) | 15 (13.2) | |
| Cortical hypertrophy | |||
| No | 220 (94.8) | 110 (96.5) | |
| Yes | 12 (5.2) | 4 (3.5) | |
| Osteolysis | |||
| No | 231 (99.6) | 114 (100.0) | |
| Yes | 1 (0.4) | 0 (0.0) | |
| Radiolucency | |||
| No | 228 (98.3) | 112 (98.2) | |
| Yes | 4 (1.7) | 2 (1.8) | |
Mean (standard deviation) for clinical outcome,; VAS: Visual analogue scale; N (%) for radiological outcome; clinical outcome based on 244 young hips and 121 elderly hips; radiological outcome based on 232 young hips and 114 elderly hips
Complications
| Young | Elderly | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intraoperative complications | ||||
| Femur fissure | 4 (1.5) | 2 (1.4) | ||
| Avulsion of trochanter | 1 (0.4) | 1 (0.7) | ||
| Postoperative complications | ||||
| Wound dehiscence | 1 (0.4) | 0 (0.0) | ||
| Nerve palsy | 4 (1.5) | 2 (1.4) | ||
| Superficial infection | 2 (0.8) | 2 (1.4) | ||
| Wound healing disorder | 2 (0.8) | 0 (0.0) | ||
| Haematoma / seroma | 8 (3.1) | 9 (6.5) | ||
| Dislocation | 2 (0.8) | 0 (0.0) | ||
| Fracture ceramic head | 1 (0.4) | 0 (0.0) | ||
| Periprosthetic fracture | Vancouver type A | 0 (0.4) | 1 (0.0) | |
| Vancouver type B | 0 (0.0) | 3 (2.1) | ||
| Vancouver type C | 1 (0.4) | 1 (0.7) | ||
| Total | 1 (0.4) | 5 (3.6) | ||
N (%)
Fig. 3Example of postoperative periprosthetic fracture Vancouver type B3 due to accidental fall of an elderly female patient followed by stem revision (a: preoperative; b: postoperative; c: periprosthetic fracture; d: after stem revision)
Fig. 4Example of postoperative periprosthetic fracture Vancouver type B in the course of severe subsidence in an elderly female patient treated conservatively (a: preoperative; b: postoperative; c: periprosthetic fracture with severe subsidence; d: follow-up after 24 months)
Analysis of postoperative periprosthetic fractures regarding different Dorr types
| Perisprosthetic fracture | No periprosthetic fracture | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Dorr type | |||
| A | 0 (0.0) | 196 (100.0) | < 0.0001 |
| B | 4 (2.1) | 191 (98.1) | |
| C | 2 (22.2) | 7 (77.8) | |
N(%)
Reasons and rates for stem revision
| Young | Elderly | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Total | 3 (1.1) | 4 (2.8) | |
| Aseptic loosening | 3 (1.1) | 0 (0.0) | |
| Periprosthetic fracture | 0 (0.0) | 3 (2.2) | |
| Deep infection | 0 (0.0) | 1 (0.7) |
N (%)
Fig. 5Kaplan-Meier survival curve for the young group (grey) and the elderly group (black). Log rank test revealed no significant difference between the groups (p = 0.1994)