Aims. The aim of this study was to compare early functional and health
related quality of life outcomes (HRQoL) in patients who have undergone
total hip arthroplasty (THA) using a bone conserving short stem
femoral component and those in whom a conventional length uncemented
component was used. Outcome was assessed using a validated performance
based outcome instrument as well as patient reported outcome measures
(PROMs). Patients and Methods. We prospectively analysed 33 patients whose THA involved a contemporary
proximally porous coated tapered short stem femoral component and
53 patients with a standard conventional femoral component, at a
minimum follow-up of two years. The mean follow-up was 31.4 months
(24 to 39). Patients with poor proximal femoral bone quality were
excluded. The mean age of the patients was 66.6 years (59 to 77)
and the mean body mass index was 30.2 kg/m. 2. (24.1 to
41.0). Outcome was assessed using the Oxford Hip Score (OHS) and
the University College Hospital (UCH) hip score which is a validated
performance based instrument. HRQoL was assessed using the EuroQol
5D (EQ-5D). Results. There were no major peri-operative complications. There was no
difference in the mean post-operative OHS, EQ-5D or function subscale
of the UCH hip scores between the two groups. The mean pre-operative
OHS and EQ-5D scores improved significantly (all p <
0.001).
The mean functional component of the UCH hip score at final follow-up
was 42.5 and 40.6 in the short stem and conventional stem groups,
respectively. There was no statistically significant difference
between the groups (p = 0.42). A total of seven patients (21.2%)
in the short stem group and nine (16.98%) in the conventional group
achieved a ceiling effect using the OHS; none did using the function
subscale of the UCH hip score. Conclusion. The proximally porous coated tapered short stem femoral component
achieves comparable short-term functional outcomes when compared
with a conventional longer stem uncemented femoral component when
THA is undertaken in patients with good bone quality. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B(4
Supple B):49–55
