Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
You currently have no access to view or download this content. Please log in with your institutional or personal account if you should have access to through either of these
The Bone & Joint Journal Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from The Bone & Joint Journal

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Primary stability of a short bone-conserving femoral stem

a two-year randomized controlled trial using radiostereometric analysis



Download PDF

Abstract

Aims

The aim of this study was to determine the stability of a new short femoral stem compared with a conventional femoral stem in patients undergoing cementless total hip arthroplasty (THA), in a prospective randomized controlled trial using radiostereometric analysis (RSA).

Patients and Methods

A total of 53 patients were randomized to receive cementless THA with either a short femoral stem (MiniHip, 26 patients, mean age: 52 years, nine male) or a conventional length femoral stem (MetaFix, 23 patients, mean age: 53 years, 11 male). All patients received the same cementless acetabular component. Two-year follow-up was available on 38 patients. Stability was assessed through migration and dynamically inducible micromotion. Radiographs for RSA were taken postoperatively and at three, six, 12, 18, and 24 months.

Results

At two years, there was significantly less subsidence (inferior migration) of the short femoral stem (head, 0.26 mm, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.08 to 0.43, sd 0.38; tip, 0.11 mm, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.31, sd 0.42) compared with the conventional stem (head, 0.62 mm, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.90, sd 0.56, p = 0.02; tip, 0.43 mm, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.65, sd 0.44, p = 0.03). There was no significant difference in dynamically inducible micromotion, rate of complications or functional outcome.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates that the short femoral stem has a stable and predictable migration. However, longer-term survival analysis still needs to be determined.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:1148–56.


Correspondence should be sent to S. Glyn-Jones; email:

For access options please click here