Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 4 of 4
Results per page:
Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 106-B, Issue SUPP_16 | Pages 46 - 46
19 Aug 2024
Rilby K van Veghel MHW van Steenbergen LN Lewis P Mohaddes M Kärrholm J Schreurs W Hannink G
Full Access

Short-stem total hip arthroplasty (THA) may have bone sparing properties, which could be advantageous in a younger population with high risk of future revision surgery. We used data from the AOANJRR, LROI and SAR to compare survival rates of primary THA, stems used in the first-time revision procedures as well as the overall survival of first-time revisions between a cohort of short-stem and standard-stem THA.

Short-stem THAs (designed as a short stem with mainly metaphyseal fixation) between 2007 and 2021 were identified (n=16,258). A propensity score matched cohort (1:2) with standard THAs in each register was identified (n=32,515). The cohorts were merged into a research dataset. Overall survival at 12 years follow-up was calculated using Kaplan-Meier survival analyses. Stem revisions (short-stem THA n=239, standard-stem THA n=352) were identified. The type of revision stem was classified as standard (<160 mm) or long (>160 mm). The survival rate of all first-time revisions in the two groups was calculated using any type of revision as outcome.

The 12 year- overall survival rate (all revisions, all causes) for primary short-stem THAs was 95.3% (CI 94.5–95.9%), which was comparable to 95.2% (CI 94.7–95.7%) for standard-stem THAs. In the short-stem THA group, a standard stem (<160 mm) was more often (59%) used in the first-time revision than in the standard-stem group (47%, p=0.004). The overall survival of the first-time revisions did not differ between cases primarily operated with a short or a standard stem.

In our multi-national register study, the overall survival rate of short stems was similar to that of standard stems. In short stem revisions there was a higher likelihood of using a standard-length stem for the revision compared with first-time revisions of standard stems. This finding might indicate bone-sparing properties with short-stemmed THAs.


Bone & Joint Open
Vol. 4, Issue 5 | Pages 306 - 314
3 May 2023
Rilby K Mohaddes M Kärrholm J

Aims

Although the Fitmore Hip Stem has been on the market for almost 15 years, it is still not well documented in randomized controlled trials. This study compares the Fitmore stem with the CementLeSs (CLS) in several different clinical and radiological aspects. The hypothesis is that there will be no difference in outcome between stems.

Methods

In total, 44 patients with bilateral hip osteoarthritis were recruited from the outpatient clinic at a single tertiary orthopaedic centre. The patients were operated with bilateral one-stage total hip arthroplasty. The most painful hip was randomized to either Fitmore or CLS femoral component; the second hip was operated with the femoral component not used on the first side. Patients were evaluated at three and six months and at one, two, and five years postoperatively with patient-reported outcome measures, radiostereometric analysis, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, and conventional radiography. A total of 39 patients attended the follow-up visit at two years (primary outcome) and 35 patients at five years. The primary outcome was which hip the patient considered to have the best function at two years.


Aims

The aim of this study was to compare the mid-term patient-reported outcome, bone remodelling, and migration of a short stem (Collum Femoris Preserving; CFP) with a conventional uncemented stem (Corail).

Methods

Of 81 patients who were initially enrolled, 71 were available at five years’ follow-up. The outcomes at two years have previously been reported. The primary outcome measure was the clinical result assessed using the Oxford Hip Score (OHS). Secondary outcomes were the migration of the stem, measured using radiostereometric analysis (RSA), change of bone mineral density (BMD) around the stem, the development of radiolucent lines, and additional patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).


We evaluated an anatomical uncemented stem, SP-CL, (Static Physiologicus – CementLess) designed to facilitate insertion and to avoid stress concentration at solitary contact points in a randomized controlled trial, with use of the Corail stem as control. The SPÅ-Cl stem has been on the market since 2014 but is still not well documented.

79 patients (80 hips) were primarily recruited and 71 patients (72 hips, 36 SP-CL, 36 Corail) attended the last follow up at 2 years. The clinical evaluation included several types of PROMs with Oxford Hip Score (OHS) as primary outcome. In addition, repeated measurements of stem migration, changes in bone mineral density and development of radiolucencies were studied with RSA, DXA and conventional radiography.

At two years the Oxford Hip Score did not differ between the SP-CL and Corail stem (estimated mean difference: −0.70 (95% CI: −4.28 – 2.89). In both groups Oxford hip score had almost doubled at 3 months, continued to increase up to 6 months and was about equal at 2 years (SP-CL; median 46 (17–48), Corail; median 47 (19–48)). At 2 years the SP-CL stems showed a median distal migration of −0.23 (−5.2 – 0.1) and the Corail stems of − 0.11 (−4.4 – 0.4). The SP-CL stems showed slightly more loss of bone mineral density in Gruen region 7 (p = 0.003).

We found no difference in clinical results with use of either of the two stems. Bone mineral density loss tended to be higher with use of the SP-CL stem and the early subsidence tended to be more pronounced, which turned out to be compatible with about the same stem stability reached between 1 and 2 years. As a next step we think that the SP-CL stem should be studied in a multi-center setting, before accepted for general use.