Cargando…
Standard versus short stem cemented Exeter(®) when used for primary total hip arthroplasty: a survivorship analysis
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). M...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10475196/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37660075 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s42836-023-00200-8 |
_version_ | 1785100671034327040 |
---|---|
author | Clement, Nick D. Yapp, Liam Z. Baxendale-Smith, Leo D. MacDonald, Deborah Howie, Colin R. Gaston, Paul |
author_facet | Clement, Nick D. Yapp, Liam Z. Baxendale-Smith, Leo D. MacDonald, Deborah Howie, Colin R. Gaston, Paul |
author_sort | Clement, Nick D. |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10475196 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-104751962023-09-04 Standard versus short stem cemented Exeter(®) when used for primary total hip arthroplasty: a survivorship analysis Clement, Nick D. Yapp, Liam Z. Baxendale-Smith, Leo D. MacDonald, Deborah Howie, Colin R. Gaston, Paul Arthroplasty Research 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. BioMed Central 2023-09-03 /pmc/articles/PMC10475196/ /pubmed/37660075 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s42836-023-00200-8 Text en © Crown 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Research Clement, Nick D. Yapp, Liam Z. Baxendale-Smith, Leo D. MacDonald, Deborah Howie, Colin R. Gaston, Paul Standard versus short stem cemented Exeter(®) when used for primary total hip arthroplasty: a survivorship analysis |
title | Standard versus short stem cemented Exeter(®) when used for primary total hip arthroplasty: a survivorship analysis |
title_full | Standard versus short stem cemented Exeter(®) when used for primary total hip arthroplasty: a survivorship analysis |
title_fullStr | Standard versus short stem cemented Exeter(®) when used for primary total hip arthroplasty: a survivorship analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Standard versus short stem cemented Exeter(®) when used for primary total hip arthroplasty: a survivorship analysis |
title_short | Standard versus short stem cemented Exeter(®) when used for primary total hip arthroplasty: a survivorship analysis |
title_sort | standard versus short stem cemented exeter(®) when used for primary total hip arthroplasty: a survivorship analysis |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10475196/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37660075 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s42836-023-00200-8 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT clementnickd standardversusshortstemcementedexeterwhenusedforprimarytotalhiparthroplastyasurvivorshipanalysis AT yappliamz standardversusshortstemcementedexeterwhenusedforprimarytotalhiparthroplastyasurvivorshipanalysis AT baxendalesmithleod standardversusshortstemcementedexeterwhenusedforprimarytotalhiparthroplastyasurvivorshipanalysis AT macdonalddeborah standardversusshortstemcementedexeterwhenusedforprimarytotalhiparthroplastyasurvivorshipanalysis AT howiecolinr standardversusshortstemcementedexeterwhenusedforprimarytotalhiparthroplastyasurvivorshipanalysis AT gastonpaul standardversusshortstemcementedexeterwhenusedforprimarytotalhiparthroplastyasurvivorshipanalysis |