Cargando…

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

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. Metho...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Katakam, Akhil, Hosseinzadeh, Shayan, Humphrey, Tyler J, Collins, Austin, Shin, David, Melnic, Christopher M, Bragdon, Charles, Bedair, Hany S
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Cureus 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8684824/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34938623
http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.19745
_version_ 1784617699436920832
author Katakam, Akhil
Hosseinzadeh, Shayan
Humphrey, Tyler J
Collins, Austin
Shin, David
Melnic, Christopher M
Bragdon, Charles
Bedair, Hany S
author_facet Katakam, Akhil
Hosseinzadeh, Shayan
Humphrey, Tyler J
Collins, Austin
Shin, David
Melnic, Christopher M
Bragdon, Charles
Bedair, Hany S
author_sort Katakam, Akhil
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8684824
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Cureus
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-86848242021-12-21 Different Designs of Proximal Femoral Stems for Total Hip Arthroplasty: Mid-Term Clinical and Patient-Reported Functional Outcomes Katakam, Akhil Hosseinzadeh, Shayan Humphrey, Tyler J Collins, Austin Shin, David Melnic, Christopher M Bragdon, Charles Bedair, Hany S Cureus Orthopedics 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. Cureus 2021-11-19 /pmc/articles/PMC8684824/ /pubmed/34938623 http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.19745 Text en Copyright © 2021, Katakam et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Orthopedics
Katakam, Akhil
Hosseinzadeh, Shayan
Humphrey, Tyler J
Collins, Austin
Shin, David
Melnic, Christopher M
Bragdon, Charles
Bedair, Hany S
Different Designs of Proximal Femoral Stems for Total Hip Arthroplasty: Mid-Term Clinical and Patient-Reported Functional Outcomes
title Different Designs of Proximal Femoral Stems for Total Hip Arthroplasty: Mid-Term Clinical and Patient-Reported Functional Outcomes
title_full Different Designs of Proximal Femoral Stems for Total Hip Arthroplasty: Mid-Term Clinical and Patient-Reported Functional Outcomes
title_fullStr Different Designs of Proximal Femoral Stems for Total Hip Arthroplasty: Mid-Term Clinical and Patient-Reported Functional Outcomes
title_full_unstemmed Different Designs of Proximal Femoral Stems for Total Hip Arthroplasty: Mid-Term Clinical and Patient-Reported Functional Outcomes
title_short Different Designs of Proximal Femoral Stems for Total Hip Arthroplasty: Mid-Term Clinical and Patient-Reported Functional Outcomes
title_sort different designs of proximal femoral stems for total hip arthroplasty: mid-term clinical and patient-reported functional outcomes
topic Orthopedics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8684824/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34938623
http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.19745
work_keys_str_mv AT katakamakhil differentdesignsofproximalfemoralstemsfortotalhiparthroplastymidtermclinicalandpatientreportedfunctionaloutcomes
AT hosseinzadehshayan differentdesignsofproximalfemoralstemsfortotalhiparthroplastymidtermclinicalandpatientreportedfunctionaloutcomes
AT humphreytylerj differentdesignsofproximalfemoralstemsfortotalhiparthroplastymidtermclinicalandpatientreportedfunctionaloutcomes
AT collinsaustin differentdesignsofproximalfemoralstemsfortotalhiparthroplastymidtermclinicalandpatientreportedfunctionaloutcomes
AT shindavid differentdesignsofproximalfemoralstemsfortotalhiparthroplastymidtermclinicalandpatientreportedfunctionaloutcomes
AT melnicchristopherm differentdesignsofproximalfemoralstemsfortotalhiparthroplastymidtermclinicalandpatientreportedfunctionaloutcomes
AT bragdoncharles differentdesignsofproximalfemoralstemsfortotalhiparthroplastymidtermclinicalandpatientreportedfunctionaloutcomes
AT bedairhanys differentdesignsofproximalfemoralstemsfortotalhiparthroplastymidtermclinicalandpatientreportedfunctionaloutcomes