Periprosthetic femoral fracture (PPF) is a major complication following total hip arthroplasty (THA). Uncemented femoral components are widely preferred in primary THA, but are associated with higher PPF risk than cemented components. Collared components have reduced PPF rates following uncemented primary THA compared to collarless components, while maintaining similar prosthetic designs. The purpose of this study was to analyze PPF rate between collarless and collared component designs in a consecutive cohort of posterior approach THAs performed by two high-volume surgeons. This retrospective series included 1,888 uncemented primary THAs using the posterior approach performed by two surgeons (PKS, JMV) from January 2016 to December 2022. Both surgeons switched from collarless to collared components in mid-2020, which was the only change in surgical practice. Data related to component design, PPF rate, and requirement for revision surgery were collected. A total of 1,123 patients (59.5%) received a collarless femoral component and 765 (40.5%) received a collared component. PPFs were identified using medical records and radiological imaging. Fracture rates between collared and collarless components were analyzed. Power analysis confirmed 80% power of the sample to detect a significant difference in PPF rates, and a Fisher’s exact test was performed to determine an association between collared and collarless component use on PPF rates.Aims
Methods
Although CT is considered the benchmark to measure femoral version, 3D biplanar radiography (hipEOS) has recently emerged as a possible alternative with reduced exposure to ionizing radiation and shorter examination time. The aim of our study was to evaluate femoral stem version in postoperative total hip arthroplasty (THA) patients and compare the accuracy of hipEOS to CT. We hypothesize that there will be no significant difference in calculated femoral stem version measurements between the two imaging methods. In this study, 45 patients who underwent THA between February 2016 and February 2020 and had both a postoperative CT and EOS scan were included for evaluation. A fellowship-trained musculoskeletal radiologist and radiological technician measured femoral version for CT and 3D EOS, respectively. Comparison of values for each imaging modality were assessed for statistical significance.Aims
Methods
