The aim of this study was to compare the survivorship and radiographic
outcomes at ten-year follow-up of three prospective consecutive
series of patients each of which received a different design of
cementless femoral components for total hip arthroplasty (THA). In Cohort 1, 91 consecutive patients (100 hips) underwent THA
with a cementless porous-coated anatomic femoral stem (PCA) between
October 1983 and January 1986. In Cohort 2, 86 consecutive patients
(100 hips) underwent THA with an extensively porous-coated cementless
femoral stem (Prodigy) between June 1994 and October 1997. In Cohort
3, 88 consecutive patients (100 hips) underwent THA with a proximally
porous-coated triple-tapered cementless stem (Summit) between April
2002 and October 2003. All three groups underwent prospective clinical
and radiographic evaluation.Aims
Patients and Methods
A common situation presenting to the orthopaedic
surgeon today is a worn acetabular liner with substantial acetabular
and pelvic osteolysis. The surgeon has many options for dealing
with osteolytic defects. These include allograft, calcium based
substitutes, demineralised bone matrix, or combinations of these
options with or without addition of platelet rich plasma. To date
there are no clinical studies to determine the efficacy of using
bone-stimulating materials in osteolytic defects at the time of
revision surgery and there are surprisingly few studies demonstrating
the clinical efficacy of these treatment options. Even when radiographs
appear to demonstrate incorporation of graft material CT studies
have shown that incorporation is incomplete. The surgeon, in choosing
a graft material for a surgical procedure must take into account
the efficacy, safety, cost and convenience of that material. Cite this article:
Options for the treatment of subcapital femoral
neck fractures basically fall into two categories: internal fixation
or arthroplasty (either hemiarthroplasty or total hip arthroplasty).
Historically, the treatment option has been driven by a diagnosis-related approach
(non-displaced neck fractures versus displaced neck fractures).
More recently, the traditional paradigm has changed. Instead of
a diagnosis-related approach, it has become more of a patient-related
approach. Treatment options take in to consideration the patient’s age,
functional demands, and individual risk profile. A simple algorithm
can be helpful in terms of directing the treatment. Non-displaced
fractures, regardless of age of the patient, should be treated with
closed reduction and internal fixation. For displaced femoral neck fractures,
the treatment differs depending on the age of the patient. The younger
patient should be treated with urgent ORIF with the goal of an anatomic
reduction. For displaced femoral neck fractures in the elderly,
cognitive function should be determined. For those who are cognitively
functioning, total hip arthroplasty appears to be the best option.
In the cognitively dysfunctional, a bipolar hemiarthroplasty or
a total hip arthroplasty with use of larger heads (32 mm or 36 mm)
and/or constrained sockets are a viable option.