BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to compare the long-term clinical and radiographic results, survival rates, and complication rates of an ultra-short vs a conventional length cementless anatomic femoral stem. METHODS: We reviewed 759 patients (858 hips) (mean age, 56.3 ± 12.9 y) who had an ultra-short cementless anatomic stem and 759 patients (858 hips) (mean age, 54.8 ± 12.3 y) who had a conventional length cementless anatomic stem. The mean follow-up was 16.5 years (range 14-17) in the ultra-short stem group and 17.5 years (range 17-20) in the conventional stem group. RESULTS: At the latest follow-up, there were no significant differences between the 2 groups in terms of the Harris Hip Scores (92 ± 6 vs 91 ± 7 points, P = .173), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis scores (12 ± 8 vs 13 ± 7 points, P = .972), University of California Los Angeles activity scores (7.6 vs 7.8 points, P = .841), patient satisfaction scores (7.7 ± 2.3 vs 7.5 ± 2.5 points, P = .981), and survival rates (97.6% vs 96.6%). However, incidence of thigh pain (P = .031) and stress shielding (P = .001) was significantly higher in the conventional length stem group than in the ultra-short anatomic stem group. Complication rates were similar (1.8% vs 2.7%) between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: Although an ultra-short cementless anatomic femoral stem confers equivalent clinical and radiographic outcomes, survival rates, and complication rates to conventional length cementless anatomic stem, the incidence of thigh pain and stress shielding was significantly lower in the ultra-short cementless anatomic stem. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level I.
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to compare the long-term clinical and radiographic results, survival rates, and complication rates of an ultra-short vs a conventional length cementless anatomic femoral stem. METHODS: We reviewed 759 patients (858 hips) (mean age, 56.3 ± 12.9 y) who had an ultra-short cementless anatomic stem and 759 patients (858 hips) (mean age, 54.8 ± 12.3 y) who had a conventional length cementless anatomic stem. The mean follow-up was 16.5 years (range 14-17) in the ultra-short stem group and 17.5 years (range 17-20) in the conventional stem group. RESULTS: At the latest follow-up, there were no significant differences between the 2 groups in terms of the Harris Hip Scores (92 ± 6 vs 91 ± 7 points, P = .173), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis scores (12 ± 8 vs 13 ± 7 points, P = .972), University of California Los Angeles activity scores (7.6 vs 7.8 points, P = .841), patient satisfaction scores (7.7 ± 2.3 vs 7.5 ± 2.5 points, P = .981), and survival rates (97.6% vs 96.6%). However, incidence of thigh pain (P = .031) and stress shielding (P = .001) was significantly higher in the conventional length stem group than in the ultra-short anatomic stem group. Complication rates were similar (1.8% vs 2.7%) between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: Although an ultra-short cementless anatomic femoral stem confers equivalent clinical and radiographic outcomes, survival rates, and complication rates to conventional length cementless anatomic stem, the incidence of thigh pain and stress shielding was significantly lower in the ultra-short cementless anatomic stem. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level I.