Cargando…

Comparison of Bone Remodeling Between Collum Femoris-Preserving Stems and Ribbed Stems in 1-Stage Bilateral Total Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND: This study examined a cohort of patients who underwent bilateral THAs. CFP prostheses and ribbed prostheses were each used on both sides. We assessed the midterm clinical, radiological, and bone remodeling outcomes around prosthesis of these patients. MATERIAL/METHODS: From January 2009...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Liu, Zeming, Liu, Bo, Liu, Sikai, Li, Mengnan, Chen, Xiao, Han, Yongtai
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: International Scientific Literature, Inc. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7245061/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32413021
http://dx.doi.org/10.12659/MSM.924668
_version_ 1783537687437770752
author Liu, Zeming
Liu, Bo
Liu, Sikai
Li, Mengnan
Chen, Xiao
Han, Yongtai
author_facet Liu, Zeming
Liu, Bo
Liu, Sikai
Li, Mengnan
Chen, Xiao
Han, Yongtai
author_sort Liu, Zeming
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: This study examined a cohort of patients who underwent bilateral THAs. CFP prostheses and ribbed prostheses were each used on both sides. We assessed the midterm clinical, radiological, and bone remodeling outcomes around prosthesis of these patients. MATERIAL/METHODS: From January 2009 to January 2013, 53 patients were enrolled in our study. We clinically evaluated all patients by recording Harris hip and Oxford hip scores. Some radiological indicators of the femoral prosthesis position were measured. Periprosthetic bone remodeling was assessed via bone mineral density (BMD) measurements. RESULTS: The mean preoperative HHS of the CFP group and ribbed group were no significantly different (P=0.570). The neck-shaft angle in the ribbed group was significantly greater than in the CFP group (P<0.001). The CFP group had a greater offset (P<0.001). There was no significant difference in leg-length discrepancy (P=0.727) or Engh score between the 2 groups at the last follow-up (P=0.858). The preoperative BMD was increased at the last follow-up in Gruen zones 3 and 5 (P<0.05) and decreased in Gruen zones 1 and 7 (P<0.05) on the CFP side. BMD was increased in Gruen zone 4 (P=0.007) on the ribbed side. Pearson correlations and rate of complications were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: Both the CFP and ribbed stem significantly improved the preoperative HHSs and OHSs. The bone remodeling of the CFP stem was more concentrated in the middle and distal regions of the prosthesis, while that of the ribbed stem was more concentrated in the proximal portion of the prosthesis.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7245061
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher International Scientific Literature, Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-72450612020-06-01 Comparison of Bone Remodeling Between Collum Femoris-Preserving Stems and Ribbed Stems in 1-Stage Bilateral Total Hip Arthroplasty Liu, Zeming Liu, Bo Liu, Sikai Li, Mengnan Chen, Xiao Han, Yongtai Med Sci Monit Clinical Research BACKGROUND: This study examined a cohort of patients who underwent bilateral THAs. CFP prostheses and ribbed prostheses were each used on both sides. We assessed the midterm clinical, radiological, and bone remodeling outcomes around prosthesis of these patients. MATERIAL/METHODS: From January 2009 to January 2013, 53 patients were enrolled in our study. We clinically evaluated all patients by recording Harris hip and Oxford hip scores. Some radiological indicators of the femoral prosthesis position were measured. Periprosthetic bone remodeling was assessed via bone mineral density (BMD) measurements. RESULTS: The mean preoperative HHS of the CFP group and ribbed group were no significantly different (P=0.570). The neck-shaft angle in the ribbed group was significantly greater than in the CFP group (P<0.001). The CFP group had a greater offset (P<0.001). There was no significant difference in leg-length discrepancy (P=0.727) or Engh score between the 2 groups at the last follow-up (P=0.858). The preoperative BMD was increased at the last follow-up in Gruen zones 3 and 5 (P<0.05) and decreased in Gruen zones 1 and 7 (P<0.05) on the CFP side. BMD was increased in Gruen zone 4 (P=0.007) on the ribbed side. Pearson correlations and rate of complications were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: Both the CFP and ribbed stem significantly improved the preoperative HHSs and OHSs. The bone remodeling of the CFP stem was more concentrated in the middle and distal regions of the prosthesis, while that of the ribbed stem was more concentrated in the proximal portion of the prosthesis. International Scientific Literature, Inc. 2020-05-15 /pmc/articles/PMC7245061/ /pubmed/32413021 http://dx.doi.org/10.12659/MSM.924668 Text en © Med Sci Monit, 2020 This work is licensed under Creative Common Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) )
spellingShingle Clinical Research
Liu, Zeming
Liu, Bo
Liu, Sikai
Li, Mengnan
Chen, Xiao
Han, Yongtai
Comparison of Bone Remodeling Between Collum Femoris-Preserving Stems and Ribbed Stems in 1-Stage Bilateral Total Hip Arthroplasty
title Comparison of Bone Remodeling Between Collum Femoris-Preserving Stems and Ribbed Stems in 1-Stage Bilateral Total Hip Arthroplasty
title_full Comparison of Bone Remodeling Between Collum Femoris-Preserving Stems and Ribbed Stems in 1-Stage Bilateral Total Hip Arthroplasty
title_fullStr Comparison of Bone Remodeling Between Collum Femoris-Preserving Stems and Ribbed Stems in 1-Stage Bilateral Total Hip Arthroplasty
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Bone Remodeling Between Collum Femoris-Preserving Stems and Ribbed Stems in 1-Stage Bilateral Total Hip Arthroplasty
title_short Comparison of Bone Remodeling Between Collum Femoris-Preserving Stems and Ribbed Stems in 1-Stage Bilateral Total Hip Arthroplasty
title_sort comparison of bone remodeling between collum femoris-preserving stems and ribbed stems in 1-stage bilateral total hip arthroplasty
topic Clinical Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7245061/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32413021
http://dx.doi.org/10.12659/MSM.924668
work_keys_str_mv AT liuzeming comparisonofboneremodelingbetweencollumfemorispreservingstemsandribbedstemsin1stagebilateraltotalhiparthroplasty
AT liubo comparisonofboneremodelingbetweencollumfemorispreservingstemsandribbedstemsin1stagebilateraltotalhiparthroplasty
AT liusikai comparisonofboneremodelingbetweencollumfemorispreservingstemsandribbedstemsin1stagebilateraltotalhiparthroplasty
AT limengnan comparisonofboneremodelingbetweencollumfemorispreservingstemsandribbedstemsin1stagebilateraltotalhiparthroplasty
AT chenxiao comparisonofboneremodelingbetweencollumfemorispreservingstemsandribbedstemsin1stagebilateraltotalhiparthroplasty
AT hanyongtai comparisonofboneremodelingbetweencollumfemorispreservingstemsandribbedstemsin1stagebilateraltotalhiparthroplasty