Standard versus short stem cemented Exeter® when used for primary total hip arthroplasty: a survivorship analysis.

IF 2.3 4区 医学 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS
Nick D Clement, Liam Z Yapp, Leo D Baxendale-Smith, Deborah MacDonald, Colin R Howie, Paul Gaston
{"title":"Standard versus short stem cemented Exeter<sup>®</sup> when used for primary total hip arthroplasty: a survivorship analysis.","authors":"Nick D Clement, Liam Z Yapp, Leo D Baxendale-Smith, Deborah MacDonald, Colin R Howie, Paul Gaston","doi":"10.1186/s42836-023-00200-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>The aims were to compare the survival of the cemented standard (150 mm) with the short (DDH [35.5 mm offset or less], number 1 short stem [125 mm options of 37.5 mm, 44 mm, 50 mm offset] and revision [44/00/125]) Exeter<sup>®</sup> V40 femoral stems when used for primary total hip arthroplasty (THA).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients were retrospectively identified from an arthroplasty database. A total of 664 short stem Exeter<sup>®</sup> variants were identified, of which 229 were DDH stems, 208 number 1 stems and 227 revision stems were implanted between 2011 and 2020. A control group of 698 standard Exeter<sup>®</sup> stems used for THA was set up, and were followed up for a minimum of 10 years follow-up (implanted 2011). All-cause survival was assessed for THA and for the stem only. Adjusted analysis was undertaken for age, sex and ASA grade.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The median survival time for the short stems varied according to design: DDH had a survival time of 6.7 years, number 1 stems 4.1 years, and revision stems 7.2 years. Subjects in the short stem group (n = 664) were significantly younger (mean difference 5.1, P < 0.001) and were more likely to be female (odds ratio 1.89, 95% CI 1.50 to 2.39, P < 0.001), compared to the standard group. There were no differences in THA (P = 0.26) or stem (P = 0.35) survival at 5 years (adjusted THA: 98.3% vs. 97.2%; stem 98.7% vs. 97.8%) or 10 years (adjusted THA 97.0% vs. 96.0 %; stem 96.7% vs. 96.2%) between standard and short stem groups, respectively. At 5 years no differences were found in THA (DDH: 96.7%, number 1 97.5%, revision 97.3%, standard 98.6%) or stem (DDH: 97.6%, number 1 99.0%, revision 97.3%, standard 98.2%) survival between/among the different short stems or when compared to the standard group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The Exeter<sup>®</sup> short stems offer equivocal survival when compared to the standard stem at 5- to 10-year follow-up, which does not seem to be influenced by the short stem design.</p>","PeriodicalId":52831,"journal":{"name":"Arthroplasty","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10475196/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arthroplasty","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s42836-023-00200-8","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims: The aims were to compare the survival of the cemented standard (150 mm) with the short (DDH [35.5 mm offset or less], number 1 short stem [125 mm options of 37.5 mm, 44 mm, 50 mm offset] and revision [44/00/125]) Exeter® V40 femoral stems when used for primary total hip arthroplasty (THA).

Methods: Patients were retrospectively identified from an arthroplasty database. A total of 664 short stem Exeter® variants were identified, of which 229 were DDH stems, 208 number 1 stems and 227 revision stems were implanted between 2011 and 2020. A control group of 698 standard Exeter® stems used for THA was set up, and were followed up for a minimum of 10 years follow-up (implanted 2011). All-cause survival was assessed for THA and for the stem only. Adjusted analysis was undertaken for age, sex and ASA grade.

Results: The median survival time for the short stems varied according to design: DDH had a survival time of 6.7 years, number 1 stems 4.1 years, and revision stems 7.2 years. Subjects in the short stem group (n = 664) were significantly younger (mean difference 5.1, P < 0.001) and were more likely to be female (odds ratio 1.89, 95% CI 1.50 to 2.39, P < 0.001), compared to the standard group. There were no differences in THA (P = 0.26) or stem (P = 0.35) survival at 5 years (adjusted THA: 98.3% vs. 97.2%; stem 98.7% vs. 97.8%) or 10 years (adjusted THA 97.0% vs. 96.0 %; stem 96.7% vs. 96.2%) between standard and short stem groups, respectively. At 5 years no differences were found in THA (DDH: 96.7%, number 1 97.5%, revision 97.3%, standard 98.6%) or stem (DDH: 97.6%, number 1 99.0%, revision 97.3%, standard 98.2%) survival between/among the different short stems or when compared to the standard group.

Conclusion: The Exeter® short stems offer equivocal survival when compared to the standard stem at 5- to 10-year follow-up, which does not seem to be influenced by the short stem design.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

标准与短柄骨水泥Exeter®用于初次全髋关节置换术:生存分析
目的:目的是比较用于初次全髋关节置换术(THA)时,标准骨水泥(150 mm)与短(DDH [35.5 mm偏移或更少],1号短柄[37.5 mm, 44 mm, 50 mm偏移的125 mm选项]和改进型[44/0 /125])Exeter®V40股骨柄的生存率。方法:回顾性地从关节成形术数据库中确定患者。共鉴定出664个短茎Exeter®变体,其中在2011年至2020年期间植入了229个DDH茎,208个1号茎和227个修复茎。建立698个用于THA的标准Exeter®假体作为对照组,随访至少10年(植入2011年)。全因生存评估为THA和仅为干。对年龄、性别和ASA分级进行调整分析。结果:短茎的中位生存时间因设计而异:DDH的生存时间为6.7年,1号茎4.1年,翻修茎7.2年。与标准组相比,短茎组(n = 664)的受试者明显更年轻(平均差5.1,P < 0.001),并且更可能是女性(优势比1.89,95% CI 1.50至2.39,P < 0.001)。5年THA (P = 0.26)或stem (P = 0.35)生存率无差异(调整THA: 98.3% vs 97.2%;干98.7%对97.8%)或10年(调整后的THA 97.0%对96.0%;标准组和短茎组的差异分别为96.7%和96.2%。5年时,不同短茎之间或与标准组相比,THA (DDH: 96.7%,编号1 97.5%,修订97.3%,标准98.6%)或茎(DDH: 97.6%,编号1 99.0%,修订97.3%,标准98.2%)的生存率无差异。结论:在5- 10年的随访中,与标准支架相比,Exeter®短支架的生存率不确定,短支架的设计似乎不受其影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Arthroplasty
Arthroplasty ORTHOPEDICS-
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
49
审稿时长
15 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信