Ultra-short versus conventional uncemented stems for hip replacement in octogenarians

Young Hoo Kim, Jang Won Park, Jun Shik Kim

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

2 Scopus citations

Abstract

The aim of this study was to determine how an ultra-short anatomic uncemented stem vs a diaphyseal filling five-eighths porous coated uncemented femoral stem (conventional stem) affects the survival of primary total hip arthroplasties in octogenarians. The current study consisted of 52 patients (55 hips) in the ultra-short stem group (mean age, 85.5±5.3 years) and 61 patients (72 hips) in the diaphyseal (conventional) stem group (mean age, 84.1±4.8 years). The predominant diagnosis was osteoarthritis, followed by osteonecrosis of the femoral head, in both groups. Average follow-up was 6.1 years (range, 5-8 years) in the ultra-short stem group and 6.3 years (range, 5-9 years) in the conventional stem group. Pre- (41 vs 39 points) and postoperative (85 vs 86 points) Harris hip scores were similar between groups (P=.131 and .129, respectively). The incidence of thigh pain was 0% (0 of 52 patients) in the ultra-short stem group and 15% (9 of 61 patients) in the conventional stem group. The revision rate was 1.8% (1 hip) in the ultra-short stem group and 1.4% (1 hip) in the conventional stem group. Survivorship of the femoral stem was 98.2% in the ultra-short stem group at 6.1 years and 98.6% in the conventional stem group at 6.3 years. Ultra-short anatomic and diaphyseal filling uncemented stems obtained osseointegration in all hips. However, the prevalence of thigh pain and periprosthetic fracture were significantly higher in the patients with a conventional stem than in those with an ultra-short stem.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)28-34
Number of pages7
JournalOrthopedics
Volume41
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - 1 Jan 2018

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Ultra-short versus conventional uncemented stems for hip replacement in octogenarians'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this