Literature DB >> 9553546

100 cemented versus 100 noncemented stems with comparison of 25 matched pairs.

D D D'Lima1, C S Oishi, W J Petersilge, C W Colwell, R H Walker.   

Abstract

Two series of 100 consecutive primary total hip arthroplasties, each using a single design of noncemented or cemented femoral component (all 28 mm heads), were compared. One cemented and two noncemented stems underwent revision for aseptic loosening. Of unrevised hips, outcome data statistically favored cemented, rather than noncemented, stems. The data for cemented and noncemented stems, respectively, were: An excellent to good result in 97% versus 88%; thigh pain in 3% versus 40%; subsidence in 0% versus 22%; and endosteal cavitation in 6% versus 12%. For patients with 25 unrevised matched pairs, selected by gender, age, diagnosis, and weight, outcome data also statistically favored cemented over noncemented stems, respectively: an excellent or good result in 25 versus 20 hips; thigh pain in two versus eight hips; and subsidence in none versus six hips. Midterm followup data for these concurrent total hip arthroplasty series of a mid 1980s design revealed prevalence of mechanical failure of 1% for cemented stems and 4% for noncemented stems. Corroborating matched pair comparison neutralized selection bias as a causative factor for these differences. These data indicate contemporary cemented femoral stem fixation is superior to second generation noncemented femoral stem fixation. Controlled comparative studies at midterm to long term followup, such as in this report, are needed to define outcome and indications for current third generation noncemented stem fixation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9553546

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.176


  5 in total

1.  An in vivo evaluation of bone response to three implant surfaces using a rabbit intramedullary rod model.

Authors:  Juan C Hermida; Arnie Bergula; Fred Dimaano; Monica Hawkins; Clifford W Colwell; Darryl D D'Lima
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2010-08-16       Impact factor: 2.359

Review 2.  Hip resurfacing versus total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review comparing standardized outcomes.

Authors:  Deborah A Marshall; Karen Pykerman; Jason Werle; Diane Lorenzetti; Tracy Wasylak; Tom Noseworthy; Donald A Dick; Greg O'Connor; Aish Sundaram; Sanne Heintzbergen; Cy Frank
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-04-04       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  Cemented versus non-cemented hemiarthroplasty of the hip as a treatment for a displaced femoral neck fracture: design of a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Anne J H Vochteloo; DieuDonné Niesten; Roeland Riedijk; Willard J Rijnberg; Stefan B T Bolder; Sander Koëter; Keetie Kremers-van de Hei; Taco Gosens; Peter Pilot
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2009-05-28       Impact factor: 2.362

4.  A prospective study of hip revision surgery using the Exeter long-stem prosthesis: function, subsidence, and complications for 57 patients.

Authors:  K Randhawa; F S Hossain; B Smith; Cyril Mauffrey; T Lawrence
Journal:  J Orthop Traumatol       Date:  2009-10-24

Review 5.  Early proximal migration of cups is associated with late revision in THA: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 26 RSA studies and 49 survivalstudies.

Authors:  Bart G Pijls; Marc J Nieuwenhuijse; Marta Fiocco; Josepha Wm Plevier; Saskia Middeldorp; Rob Ghh Nelissen; Edward R Valstar
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2012-11-05       Impact factor: 3.717

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.