No differences in clinical and radiographic outcomes between standard versus high offset collared stems for primary total hip arthroplasty at five years follow-up.

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
ACS Applied Bio Materials Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-07 DOI:10.1007/s00264-024-06264-8
Laurent Jacquot, Alain Machenaud, Bethany Grew, Sonia Ramos-Pascual, Sonia Dubreuil, Mo Saffarini, Julien Chouteau
{"title":"No differences in clinical and radiographic outcomes between standard versus high offset collared stems for primary total hip arthroplasty at five years follow-up.","authors":"Laurent Jacquot, Alain Machenaud, Bethany Grew, Sonia Ramos-Pascual, Sonia Dubreuil, Mo Saffarini, Julien Chouteau","doi":"10.1007/s00264-024-06264-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare clinical and radiographic outcomes of propensity-matched patients undergoing THA using standard versus high offset stems at five years.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The authors retrospectively reviewed a consecutive series of primary THAs performed between 01/09/2015-31/12/2017 using a fully-hydroxyapatite coated collared stem, with either a standard (n = 365) or high (n = 110) offset. Outcomes collected included: modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Oxford Hip Score (OHS), Forgotten Joint Score (FJS), and radiographic measurements including limb length discrepancy (LLD), stem subsidence, and stem radiolucencies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Propensity score matching resulted in 80 hips per group. Preoperatively there were no significant differences in patient demographics, surgical data and radiographic measurements, except the standard offset group had significantly smaller femoral (40.0 ± 7.5 vs 48.4 ± 6.2, p < 0.001), acetabular (92. ± 6.3 vs 94.8 ± 7.3, p = 0.011) and global (132.0 ± 10.3 vs 143.2 ± 8.2, p < 0.001) offsets compared to the high offset group. At a minimum five years follow-up, there were no significant differences in mHHS (93.2 ± 11.0 vs 93.1 ± 10.6, p = 0.553), OHS (45.1 ± 4.1 vs 45.3 ± 4.6, p = 0.623), and FJS (85.1 ± 19.3 vs 82.7 ± 23.0, p = 0.910). There were also no differences in radiographic measurements, including LLD (1.5 ± 4.8 vs 1.1 ± 3.5, p = 0.537), stem subsidence (0% vs 0%, p = 1.000), and stem radiolucencies (severe: 6% vs 1%, p = 0.152).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The present matched-cohort study found no significant differences between standard versus high offset straight fully-hydroxyapatite coated collared stems for primary THA in terms of clinical and radiographic outcomes at five years. These findings may suggest that uncemented collared high offset stems are not associated with an increased risk of radiolucencies and loosening compared to uncemented collared standard offset stems.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-024-06264-8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To compare clinical and radiographic outcomes of propensity-matched patients undergoing THA using standard versus high offset stems at five years.

Methods: The authors retrospectively reviewed a consecutive series of primary THAs performed between 01/09/2015-31/12/2017 using a fully-hydroxyapatite coated collared stem, with either a standard (n = 365) or high (n = 110) offset. Outcomes collected included: modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Oxford Hip Score (OHS), Forgotten Joint Score (FJS), and radiographic measurements including limb length discrepancy (LLD), stem subsidence, and stem radiolucencies.

Results: Propensity score matching resulted in 80 hips per group. Preoperatively there were no significant differences in patient demographics, surgical data and radiographic measurements, except the standard offset group had significantly smaller femoral (40.0 ± 7.5 vs 48.4 ± 6.2, p < 0.001), acetabular (92. ± 6.3 vs 94.8 ± 7.3, p = 0.011) and global (132.0 ± 10.3 vs 143.2 ± 8.2, p < 0.001) offsets compared to the high offset group. At a minimum five years follow-up, there were no significant differences in mHHS (93.2 ± 11.0 vs 93.1 ± 10.6, p = 0.553), OHS (45.1 ± 4.1 vs 45.3 ± 4.6, p = 0.623), and FJS (85.1 ± 19.3 vs 82.7 ± 23.0, p = 0.910). There were also no differences in radiographic measurements, including LLD (1.5 ± 4.8 vs 1.1 ± 3.5, p = 0.537), stem subsidence (0% vs 0%, p = 1.000), and stem radiolucencies (severe: 6% vs 1%, p = 0.152).

Conclusion: The present matched-cohort study found no significant differences between standard versus high offset straight fully-hydroxyapatite coated collared stems for primary THA in terms of clinical and radiographic outcomes at five years. These findings may suggest that uncemented collared high offset stems are not associated with an increased risk of radiolucencies and loosening compared to uncemented collared standard offset stems.

Abstract Image

初级全髋关节置换术中使用标准和高偏置带环柄,五年随访后的临床和放射学结果无差异。
目的:比较使用标准和高偏移柄进行THA手术的倾向匹配患者五年后的临床和放射学结果:作者回顾性分析了2015年9月1日至2017年12月31日期间使用全羟基磷灰石涂层带环柄、标准偏移量(n = 365)或高偏移量(n = 110)的连续系列初次THA手术。收集的结果包括:改良哈里斯髋关节评分(mHHS)、牛津髋关节评分(OHS)、遗忘关节评分(FJS),以及包括肢长差异(LLD)、茎杆下沉和茎杆放射状突起在内的放射学测量结果:倾向评分匹配结果显示每组有80个髋关节。术前,患者的人口统计学、手术数据和放射学测量结果无明显差异,但标准偏移组的股骨明显较小(40.0 ± 7.5 vs 48.4 ± 6.2,P 结论:标准偏移组的股骨较小(40.0 ± 7.5 vs 48.4 ± 6.2,P本匹配队列研究发现,就五年后的临床和放射学结果而言,标准偏移量与高偏移量直型全羟基磷灰石涂层骨圈柄在初级 THA 中没有明显差异。这些研究结果可能表明,与非骨水泥胶合的标准偏移基台相比,非骨水泥胶合的高偏移基台不会增加发生放射性损伤和松动的风险。
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
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
×
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