| Literature DB >> 35239021 |
Ramakanth R Yakkanti1, Dylan N Greif1, Dennis J Vanden Berge2,3, Raymond P Robinson1.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Fully hydroxyapatite-coated titanium alloy double-tapered stems have been successful implant designs for THA. The Novation Element Stem (Exactech, Gainesville, FL) is one of several of these implants following a modified Corail design philosophy. Although a great deal is known about the results of the Corail stem, little is known about the more recent Corail-inspired implants. The authors evaluated the clinical outcomes, radiographic findings and survival statistics of the collarless version of the Element Stem when used routinely in a diverse patient population.Entities:
Keywords: Aseptic loosening; Cementless collarless femoral stem; HA coating; Mid-term outcomes; Outcomes; Press fit femoral stem
Year: 2022 PMID: 35239021 PMCID: PMC8892108 DOI: 10.1007/s00402-022-04393-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg ISSN: 0936-8051 Impact factor: 3.067
Basic demographics
| Study population | Radiographic 2 + year F/U | Clinical 2 + year F/U | Survival 5 + years | Clinical + radiographic post-op and 2 + year F/U | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | 157 | 124 | 105 | 80 | |
| Age (years) | 58.2 ± 12.7 Range: (20–82) | 58.8 ± 11.9 Range: (25–82) | 56.9 ± 11.9 Range: (20–81) | 59.2 ± 11.1 Range: (31–82) | 0.57 |
| Gender | Male: 87 Female: 70 | Male: 69 Female: 55 | Male: 58 Female: 47 | Male: 36 Female: 31 | 0.99 |
| BMI | 28.7 ± 5.20 Range: (18.9–46.1) | 28.5 ± 5.00 Range: (18.9–46.1) | 29.2 ± 5.51 Range: (19.5–54.8) | 29.1 ± 5.15 Range: (21.3–46.1) | 0.47 |
| Follow-up (years) | 3.85 ± 1.81 Range: (2–10) | 4.81 ± 1.53 Range: (2–10) | 5.75 ± 1.68 Range: (5–10) | 4.65 ± 1.28 Range: (2–7) | |
| Diagnosis | 0.97 | ||||
| Degenerative Joint Disease | 108 (69%) | 92 (74.1%) | 73 (70.0%) | 59 (73.8%) | |
| Post-Traumatic Arthritis | 5 (3.2%) | 5 (4.03%) | 5 (4.76%) | 3 (3.75%) | |
| Avascular Necrosis | 34 (21.7%) | 22 (17.7%) | 22 (25.7%) | 14 (17.5%) | |
| Other | 10 (6.3%) | 5 (4.03%) | 5 (4.76%) | 4 (5%) | |
| Cup Implant | |||||
| Pinnacle | 53 | 34 | 51 | 16 | |
| Intergrip GXL | 92 | 85 | 53 | 60 | |
| Tritanium | 12 | 5 | 1 | 4 | |
| Stem Size | |||||
| 8 | 11 | 9 | 4 | 3 | |
| 9 | 25 | 14 | 17 | 11 | |
| 10 | 33 | 21 | 22 | 16 | |
| 11 | 37 | 30 | 25 | 19 | |
| 12 | 20 | 22 | 10 | 12 | |
| 13 | 14 | 12 | 13 | 8 | |
| 14 | 8 | 10 | 8 | 7 | |
| 15 | 6 | 4 | 5 | 3 | |
| 16 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | |
| Stem offset | |||||
| Standard | 93 | 63 | 63 | 45 | |
| Extended | 64 | 61 | 42 | 35 | |
The bold signifies a P-value reaching statistical significance
Categorical Data: Chi-Squared. ANOVA for all other statistics
Summary of radiographic findings
| Radiographic finding | Number of occurrences/total |
|---|---|
| Zone of Radiolucencies | Total: 54/157 34.4% |
| Z1 | 35 |
| Z2 | 2 |
| Z3 | 1 |
| Z4 | 0 |
| Z5 | 2 |
| Z6 | 3 |
| Z7 | 3 |
| Z8 | 36 |
| Z9 | 1 |
| Z10 | 0 |
| Z11 | 0 |
| Z12 | 1 |
| Z13 | 1 |
| Z14 | 6 |
| Spot welding | |
| Z3 | 23 |
| Z4 | 4 |
| Z5 | 8 |
| Z10 | 3 |
| Z11 | 5 |
| Z12 | 24 |
| Cortical hypertrophy | |
| Z4 | 1 |
| Z5 | 2 |
| Z12 | 1 |
| Stress shielding | 0 |
| Osteolysis of greater trochanter | 2 |
Additional radiographic findings
| Radiographic finding | Number of occurrences/total |
|---|---|
| Average greater trochanter subsidence | 3 ± 12 Range (0–95) |
| Greater trochanter subsidence > 4 mm | 18 |
| Dorr classification | |
| Type A | 8 |
| Type B | 144 |
| Type C | 5 |
| Type of initial fixation | |
| Distal potting | 47 |
| Point fixation | 106 |
| Suspension in cancellous bone | 4 |
| Alignment | |
| Stems in Varus Alignment | 102 |
| Average varus angulation (degrees) | 1 ± 1 |
| Stems in Valgus Alignment | 55 |
| Average valgus angulation (degrees) | 1 ± 1 |
Polyethylene liner and radiolucencies
| Radiographic findings | Implant type | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Pinnacle | Integrip GXL | Tritanium | |
| Zone of radiolucencies | |||
| Z1 | 18 | 16 | 1 |
| Z2 | 2 | ||
| Z3 | 1 | ||
| Z4 | |||
| Z5 | 2 | 1 | |
| Z6 | 2 | 1 | |
| Z7 | 3 | ||
| Z8 | 18 | 15 | 3 |
| Z9 | 1 | ||
| Z10 | |||
| Z11 | |||
| Z12 | 1 | ||
| Z13 | 1 | ||
| Z14 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| Instances of aseptic loosening | 2 | 2 | |
Clinical outcomes
| Clinical score | Clinical survival 2 + year F/U | Clinical + radiographic post-op and 2 + year F/U | |
|---|---|---|---|
| HHS | 91.9 ± 12.7 Range: (39–100) | 91.9 ± 12.2 Range: (39–100) | 0.50 |
| OHS | 43.9 ± 6.98 Range: (13–48) | 43.7 ± 7.27 Range: (13–48) | 0.41 |
| Patient satisfaction (0–10) | 9.47 ± 1.12 Range: (5–10) | 9.48 ± 1.14 Range: (5–10) | 0.98 |
Causes for revision
| Complications | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Aseptic Loosening | 4 |
| Peri-prosthetic Fracture-Proximal Medial | 2 |
| Peri-prosthetic Fracture-Late Traumatic | 2 |
Fig. 1Progressive radiolucencies leading to aseptic loosening in a 53-year-old female. A Post-operative recovery room film demonstrating appropriate fit. B Film at 10 months already demonstrates radiolucency in Zone 1. C Film at 24 months demonstrating progressive radiolucencies in Zones 1 and 2. D Film taken 60 months after surgery demonstrating progressive radiolucencies in Zones, 1,2,3 and 7 with the beginning of shelf formation
Fig. 2Kaplan–Meier survival curve
Fig. 3Proximal medial fracture in a 54-year-old female. A Post-operative recovery room films demonstrating stable fixation. B Proximal medial fracture necessitating revision less than 1 month after surgery
Fig. 4Retrieved element stem. A Element Stem prior to implantation. B Element stem retrieved after revision for aseptic loosening. Demonstrated is the uniform loss of hydroxyapatite coating, likely secondary to resorption and abrasion