Short-stem hip arthroplasty is gaining popularity as a method of treating hip arthritis in biologically younger patients. The potential benefit of using a short-stem is preservation of bone in the proximal femur for a future revision. We have compared the early clinical and radiological results of a short-stem hip arthroplasty versus a conventional total hip arthroplasty (THA) using a standard length femoral prosthesis with particular focus on functional outcome. We evaluated a prospectively collected data on consecutive series of 249 patients, who underwent uncemented total hip arthroplasty at our institution. They were distributed into 2 groups: Group I, 125 patients received an uncemented short femoral stem (Mini Hip Arthroplasty (MHA), Corin, Cirencester) and Group II, 124 patients received a conventional uncemented femoral stem (Accolade, Stryker, Michigan) with mean follow up of 3.2 years (2–4). The characteristics of the two groups have been presented in Table I. Evaluation was based on plain radiographs performed at 6 months, 1 year and 2 years postoperatively, while their clinical status was assessed using the modified Harris hip score (mHHS) preoperatively and postoperatively at 6 weeks, 6 months, 1-year, 2-years and annually thereafter.Introduction
Methods
Hip replacement surgery is an effective treatment, however quantitative outcome does not necessarily delineate the true picture. It is important to triangulate data methods in order to ascertain important contextual factors that may influence patient perception. The aim of the current study was to explore the patient perception on resurfacing hip arthroplasty (RHA) and mini-hip arthroplasty (MHA) in a unique cohort where each patient has received a resurfacing on one side and a mini-hip on the contralateral side using both quantitative and qualitative measures (Fig. 1).Background
Aims
