| Literature DB >> 34689823 |
Linbo Peng1, Jun Ma1, Yi Zeng1, Yuangang Wu1, Haibo Si1, Bin Shen2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although the high offset Tri-Lock bone preservation stem (BPS) was used widely, few studies explored the clinical and radiological results. The purpose of this study was to determine the clinical and radiological results of high offset Tri-Lock BPS in unilateral primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) at a minimum follow-up of 3 years.Entities:
Keywords: High offset; Hip function; Leg length discrepancy; Offset; Stem; Total hip arthroplasty
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34689823 PMCID: PMC8543806 DOI: 10.1186/s13018-021-02787-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Orthop Surg Res ISSN: 1749-799X Impact factor: 2.359
Preoperative characteristics
| Parameters | |
|---|---|
| Number of hips (patients) | 55 (55) |
| Age (years) | 49.8 (25–73) |
| Sex (female: male) | 13 (23.6%): 42 (76.4%) |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 23.8 (17.9–33.8) |
| Surgery side (left: right) | 20:35 |
| Main diagnosis ( | |
| Primary OA | 4 (7.3%) |
| DDH | 10 (18.2%) |
| ONFH | 29 (52.7%) |
| Femoral neck fracture | 1 (1.8%) |
| OA secondary to childhood hip problems | 2 (3.6%) |
| OA secondary to infection | 7 (12.7%) |
| Post-traumatic osteoarthritis | 2 (3.6%) |
| Dorr type ( | |
| A | 10 (18.2%) |
| B | 43 (78.2%) |
| C | 2 (3.6%) |
| Mean follow-up (months) | 42.5 (36–48) |
BMI, body mass index; OA, Osteoarthritis; DDH, dysplasia of the hip; ONFH, osteonecrosis of the femoral head
Fig. 1Radiographic measurement. The calcar width was measured as the middle level of the lesser trochanter (line MN). The canal width was measured as 10 cm below the lesser trochanter (line KL). The calcar-to-canal ratio was calculated as line KL divided by line MN, which was used for the Dorr classification. The femoral offset (FO) was measured as the vertical distance from the center of COR and the ipsilateral anatomical femoral axis (line AB and line FG). The acetabular offset (AO) was measured as the vertical distance from the COR and the vertical line passing through the ipsilateral teardrop (line AC and line FH). The hip offset (HO) was calculated as the sum of FO and AO (line AB + line AC and line FG + line FH). Leg length discrepancy (LLD) was calculated as the difference between the bilateral vertical line from the most prominent part of the trochanter to the transteardrop line (difference of line ED and line JI)
Fig. 2The stem alignment was defined as neutral (deviation from the axis of the femoral shaft within 5°), valgus (lateral deviation more than 5°), or varus (medial deviation more than 5°)
Surgical and prosthesis data
| Parameters | |
|---|---|
| Surgical approach ( | |
| PL | 30 (54.5%) |
| DAA | 25 (45.5%) |
| Stem size | 3.3 (0–8) |
| Ceramic femoral head size ( | |
| 32 mm | 19 (34.5%) |
| 36 mm | 36 (65.5%) |
| Bearing surface | |
| Ceramic-on-ceramic | 50 (90.9%) |
| Ceramic-on-polyethylene | 5 (9.1%) |
| Stem alignment | |
| Neutral | 53 (96.4%) |
| Valgus | 1 (1.8%) |
| Varus | 1 (1.8%) |
PL, posterolateral approach; DAA, direct anterior approach
Clinical results
| Parameters | Preoperative | At latest follow-up | |
|---|---|---|---|
| HHS | 48.13 ± 9.66 | 96.84 ± 5.60 | < 0.01 |
| Excellent (90–100) | 0 | 50 | |
| Good (80–89) | 0 | 5 | |
| Fair (70–79) | 0 | 0 | |
| Poor (< 70) | 55 | 0 | |
| WOMAC total score | 50.04 ± 9.40 | 3.27 ± 3.36 | < 0.01 |
| Pain | 8.87 ± 2.42 | 1.04 ± 1.28 | < 0.01 |
| Stiffness | 2.96 ± 1.20 | 0.67 ± 0.70 | < 0.01 |
| Function | 38.20 ± 9.87 | 1.56 ± 1.76 | < 0.01 |
| OHS score | 36.15 ± 8.80 | 15.33 ± 3.12 | < 0.01 |
HHS, Harris hip score; WOMAC, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index; OHS, Oxford Hip Score
Radiographic results
| Parameters | Pre-op | 2nd day post-op | |
|---|---|---|---|
| FO (mm) | 43.2 ± 9.1 | 48.2 ± 7.4 | < 0.01 |
| HO (mm) | 81.0 ± 8.6 | 83.4 ± 8.5 | < 0.01 |
| HO difference (mm) | 2.8 ± 7.0 | 0.4 ± 5.7 | < 0.01 |
| LLD (mm) | 7.4 ± 8.4 | 4.3 ± 3.3 | < 0.01 |
| 0–10 mm | 41 (74.5%) | 53 (96.4%) | |
| 10–20 mm | 10 (18.2%) | 2 (3.6%) | |
| > 20 mm | 4 (7.3%) | 0 (0.0%) |
FO, femoral offset; HO, hip offset; LLD, leg length discrepancy
Fig. 3Anteroposterior pelvic radiograph of a 57-year-old male who was diagnosed as OA secondary to infection. The images show the progression of stress shielding at preoperative (a), second day postoperatively (b), 1 year (c), and 4 years post-operatively (d)