Different Designs of Proximal Femoral Stems for Total Hip Arthroplasty: Mid-Term Clinical and Patient-Reported Functional Outcomes

  • Katakam A
  • Hosseinzadeh S
  • Humphrey T
  • et al.
N/ACitations
Citations of this article
10Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION A comprehensive comparison of the performance of different femoral stem geometries in total hip arthroplasty (THA) is yet to be described. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate objective and subjective outcome measures in primary THA with different femoral implant styles. METHODS Stems were classified into the following five classes: cemented, conical, fit and fill, modular, and wedge. The objective outcomes of interest were the length of inpatient hospital stay (LOS), 90-day readmission rate, one-year revision rate, and two-year mortality rate. Preoperative and postoperative patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), including hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score (HOOS) - physical function shortform (HOOS-PS), patient-reported outcomes measurement information system physical function short form 10a (PROMIS PF-10a), and patient-reported outcomes measurement information system - short form - mental 10a (PROMIS M-10a) were recorded and compared between different classes. RESULTS Patients with a wedge stem had a significantly lower LOS versus every other stem group, while patients with a cemented stem had the highest LOS, approximately twofold that of the wedge stem group. Accounting for potential confounders, the conical and fit and fill groups had a significantly higher two-year mortality rate than the wedge stem group. Fit and fill stems conferred a slight risk of revision THA at one-year compared to wedge stems. There was no significant difference in the rates of failure to achieve the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the PROMs. CONCLUSION Placement of wedge stems resulted in a significantly lower LOS compared to every other stem class and a lower mortality rate than the conical, fit and fill, and modular stems. As for the 90-day readmission, one-year revision, and the rates of failure to achieve the MCID for general or hip-specific PROMs, stem design had no meaningful effect.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Katakam, A., Hosseinzadeh, S., Humphrey, T. J., Collins, A., Shin, D., Melnic, C. M., … Bedair, H. S. (2021). Different Designs of Proximal Femoral Stems for Total Hip Arthroplasty: Mid-Term Clinical and Patient-Reported Functional Outcomes. Cureus. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.19745

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free