Abstract
Abstract
Introduction
Low-grade femoral defects in revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) might be preferably treated with a primary implant. Almost no previous study reported the use of standard-length conical tapered (SLCT) stems in these cases. We analyzed a series of cases using a SLCT stem in rTHA with Paprosky type I–II femoral defects. The purpose of the study was to determine clinical and radiographic outcomes in this series of rTHA.
Materials and methods
We prospectively followed 87 patients undergoing a femoral component rTHA: 53 Paprosky type I and 34 type II femoral defects. Patient-reported measures (Oxford Hip Score, EQ-5D, VAS pain during rest and activity) were administered at baseline, 1 and 2 years post-operatively. Radiographic subsidence overtime was scored. Kaplan–Meier curves were used to evaluate the subsidence over time, the complication-free survival, and the implant survivorship with reoperation and stem revision as endpoints.
Results
The mean follow-up was 72.5 (SD ± 23.9) months. All PROMs significatively improved over time. The average subsidence was 2.8 (SD ± 3.2), 3.6 (SD ± 4.4), and 4.0 (SD ± 4.9) mm at 4, 12, and 24 months respectively. 6 stems had subsidence > 10 mm. The survival without complication was 0.85 (95% CI 0.94–0.77), while the implant survival without reoperation was 0.83 (95% CI 0.95–0.72). The overall stem survival rate was 93.7% (95% CI 0.91–0.97) at 2 years.
Conclusion
The use of a SLCT stem in rTHA with Paprosky type I–II femoral defects demonstrated good survival with low subsidence rates during the first 2 years after surgery. Surgeons should consider the use of this primary prosthesis as a potential treatment during stem revision in cases with limited femoral bone loss.
Funder
Università degli Studi di Firenze
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Orthopedics and Sports Medicine,General Medicine,Surgery,Surgery
Reference43 articles.
1. Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E et al (2007) Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Jt Surg Ser A. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.F.00222
2. Schwartz AM, Farley KX, Guild GN, Bradbury TL (2020) Projections and epidemiology of revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States to 2030. J Arthroplasty. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2020.02.030
3. Garellick G, Kärrholm J, Rogmark C et al (2018) Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register Annual Report 2017
4. Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (2018) Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR). Hip, knee and shoulder arthroplasty. Annual Report 2018. Adelaide: AOA, 2018
5. Yu S, Saleh H, Bolz N et al (2020) Re-revision total hip arthroplasty: epidemiology and factors associated with outcomes. J Clin Orthop Trauma. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcot.2018.08.021