Hybrid total hip arthroplasty with a precoated offset stem - Four to nine-year results

被引:31
作者
Cannestra, VP [1 ]
Berger, RA [1 ]
Quigley, LR [1 ]
Jacobs, JJ [1 ]
Rosenberg, AG [1 ]
Galante, JO [1 ]
机构
[1] Rush Med Coll, Rush Presbyterian St Lukes Med Ctr, Arthrit & Orthopaed Inst, Chicago, IL 60612 USA
关键词
D O I
10.2106/00004623-200009000-00009
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Use of modern cementing techniques for fixation of femoral components in total hip arthroplasty has had excellent clinical and radiographic results in most patients. However, several authors have described early loosening of femoral components with roughened and precoated finishes. The purpose of this study was to examine the performance of the precoated Iowa stem, which has increased offset, and to compare the results with those of another cemented precoated femoral component with standard offset used at our institution. Methods: We carried out a prospective analysis of 102 primary hybrid total hip arthroplasties (a cementless acetabular component and a cemented femoral component) performed with use of the Iowa femoral component in ninety-five patients at our institution. The Iowa stem was used in hips that required greater offset than is available with standard stems as determined by preoperative templating. The average age of the patients at the time of the index procedure was sixty-nine years. Sixteen patients (seventeen hips) died before the forty-eight-month minimal follow-up period had elapsed. Two patients were lost to follow-up, and radiographic follow-up was incomplete for one. The mean duration of clinical and radiographic followup of the remaining eighty-two hips in the seventy-six surviving patients was sixty-five months (range, forty-eight to 104 months). Results: The average preoperative Harris hip score of 47 points (range, 16 to 69 points) improved to an average of 87 points (range, 24 to 100 points) at the time of the review. Two hips underwent femoral component revision. Four femoral stems were radiographically loose at an average of thirty-four months. Femoral osteolysis was seen in five hips (6 percent) at an average of fifty-four months postoperatively. No acetabular component was revised because of aseptic loosening. According to Kaplan-Meier analysis, the seven-year survival rate, with an end point of femoral revision, osteolysis, or stem debonding, was 90.6 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 0.87 to 0.94). Conclusions: The prevalence of revision, osteolysis, and loosening after total hip arthroplasty with the Iowa femoral component at our institution was higher than that seen in our series of Harris Precoat stems, which had a survival rate of 98.4 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 0.97 to 1.00) at ten years with the same end points. The design of the Iowa stem may make it difficult to achieve a good cement mantle, and, in combination with the geometry and increased offset of the stem, may compromise the long-term survival of this cemented femoral component.
引用
收藏
页码:1291 / 1299
页数:9
相关论文
共 37 条
[1]
[Anonymous], 1979, CLIN ORTHOP RELAT RE
[2]
IMPROVED CEMENTING TECHNIQUES AND FEMORAL COMPONENT LOOSENING IN YOUNG-PATIENTS WITH HIP-ARTHROPLASTY - A 12-YEAR RADIOGRAPHIC REVIEW [J].
BARRACK, RL ;
MULROY, RD ;
HARRIS, WH .
JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-BRITISH VOLUME, 1992, 74 (03) :385-389
[3]
Effect of a centralizing device on cement mantle deficiencies and initial prosthetic alignment in total hip arthroplasty [J].
Berger, RA ;
Seel, MJ ;
Wood, K ;
Evans, R ;
DAntonio, J ;
Rubash, HE .
JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY, 1997, 12 (04) :434-443
[4]
BERGER RA, 1996, CLIN ORTHOP RELAT R, V333, P134
[5]
ECTOPIC OSSIFICATION FOLLOWING TOTAL HIP-REPLACEMENT - INCIDENCE AND A METHOD OF CLASSIFICATION [J].
BROOKER, AF ;
BOWERMAN, JW ;
ROBINSON, RA ;
RILEY, LH .
JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-AMERICAN VOLUME, 1973, A 55 (08) :1629-1632
[6]
BROWN EC, 1999, CLIN ORTHOP RELAT R, V364, P153
[7]
Callaghan JJ, 1997, ORTHOPEDICS, V20, P769
[8]
CALLAGHAN JJ, 1996, CLIN ORTHOP RELAT R, V333, P118
[9]
CHANG PB, 1998, CLIN ORTHOP RELAT R, V355, P57
[10]
Davey J R, 1993, J Arthroplasty, V8, P23