Cargando…

Restoration of hip geometry after total hip arthroplasty: retrospective comparison of two short stems and one straight stem

BACKGROUND: The preservation or restoration of hip geometry following total hip arthroplasty (THA) is of importance, considering that alterations in the centrum-collum-diaphysis (CCD)-angle, femoral offset (FO), acetabular offset (AO) and total offset (TO) change hip biomechanics. Therefore, the mos...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Maurer-Ertl, Werner, Friesenbichler, Joerg, Pfann, Michael, Maier, Michael, Reinbacher, Patrick, Leithner, Andreas, Smolle, Maria A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9710174/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36451134
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-022-05923-4
_version_ 1784841313210859520
author Maurer-Ertl, Werner
Friesenbichler, Joerg
Pfann, Michael
Maier, Michael
Reinbacher, Patrick
Leithner, Andreas
Smolle, Maria A.
author_facet Maurer-Ertl, Werner
Friesenbichler, Joerg
Pfann, Michael
Maier, Michael
Reinbacher, Patrick
Leithner, Andreas
Smolle, Maria A.
author_sort Maurer-Ertl, Werner
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The preservation or restoration of hip geometry following total hip arthroplasty (THA) is of importance, considering that alterations in the centrum-collum-diaphysis (CCD)-angle, femoral offset (FO), acetabular offset (AO) and total offset (TO) change hip biomechanics. Therefore, the most suitable implant should be used. The aim of this study was to compare the ability of two short-stem-systems and one straight-stem-system to reconstruct hip geometry. METHODS: Two-hundred-fifty-one patients (mean age: 62.0 ± 10.0 years; 51.8% males) undergoing THA with three different stem types were retrospectively included, after excluding 11 patients with missing radiological follow-up. Pre- and postoperative radiographic images (group I, ANA.NOVA Alpha Schaft Proxy®, ImplanTec, 12 options: n = 99; group II, Optimys® Mathys, 24 options: n = 62; group III: Corail®-System, DePuy-Synthes, 76 options: n = 90) were analyzed. Differences in pre- and postoperative hip geometry (i.e. CCD, FO, AO, TO) were compared between groups with one-way-analysis-of-variance (ANOVA), and post-hoc t-tests. RESULTS: The CCD-angle increased by a mean of 8.4° ± 7.2° from pre-to postoperative, with no significant difference between groups (p = 0.097). Significantly larger increases in FO were observed for groups II (4.1 mm ± 7.8 mm) and III (4.9 ± 7.2 mm), in comparison to group I (1.6 ± 6.9 mm; p = 0.006). AO decreased by a mean of 2.2 ± 4.5 mm, with the largest decrease observed in group III (-3.3 ± 5.3 mm), and the smallest for group I (-1.4 ± 3.6 mm; p = 0.011). There was no significant difference in change of TO between groups (p = 0.177). CONCLUSIONS: Reconstruction of hip geometry using a single-version novel short-stem-system is achievable with comparable results to stem-systems offering multiple options.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9710174
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-97101742022-12-01 Restoration of hip geometry after total hip arthroplasty: retrospective comparison of two short stems and one straight stem Maurer-Ertl, Werner Friesenbichler, Joerg Pfann, Michael Maier, Michael Reinbacher, Patrick Leithner, Andreas Smolle, Maria A. BMC Musculoskelet Disord Research BACKGROUND: The preservation or restoration of hip geometry following total hip arthroplasty (THA) is of importance, considering that alterations in the centrum-collum-diaphysis (CCD)-angle, femoral offset (FO), acetabular offset (AO) and total offset (TO) change hip biomechanics. Therefore, the most suitable implant should be used. The aim of this study was to compare the ability of two short-stem-systems and one straight-stem-system to reconstruct hip geometry. METHODS: Two-hundred-fifty-one patients (mean age: 62.0 ± 10.0 years; 51.8% males) undergoing THA with three different stem types were retrospectively included, after excluding 11 patients with missing radiological follow-up. Pre- and postoperative radiographic images (group I, ANA.NOVA Alpha Schaft Proxy®, ImplanTec, 12 options: n = 99; group II, Optimys® Mathys, 24 options: n = 62; group III: Corail®-System, DePuy-Synthes, 76 options: n = 90) were analyzed. Differences in pre- and postoperative hip geometry (i.e. CCD, FO, AO, TO) were compared between groups with one-way-analysis-of-variance (ANOVA), and post-hoc t-tests. RESULTS: The CCD-angle increased by a mean of 8.4° ± 7.2° from pre-to postoperative, with no significant difference between groups (p = 0.097). Significantly larger increases in FO were observed for groups II (4.1 mm ± 7.8 mm) and III (4.9 ± 7.2 mm), in comparison to group I (1.6 ± 6.9 mm; p = 0.006). AO decreased by a mean of 2.2 ± 4.5 mm, with the largest decrease observed in group III (-3.3 ± 5.3 mm), and the smallest for group I (-1.4 ± 3.6 mm; p = 0.011). There was no significant difference in change of TO between groups (p = 0.177). CONCLUSIONS: Reconstruction of hip geometry using a single-version novel short-stem-system is achievable with comparable results to stem-systems offering multiple options. BioMed Central 2022-11-30 /pmc/articles/PMC9710174/ /pubmed/36451134 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-022-05923-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis 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/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Maurer-Ertl, Werner
Friesenbichler, Joerg
Pfann, Michael
Maier, Michael
Reinbacher, Patrick
Leithner, Andreas
Smolle, Maria A.
Restoration of hip geometry after total hip arthroplasty: retrospective comparison of two short stems and one straight stem
title Restoration of hip geometry after total hip arthroplasty: retrospective comparison of two short stems and one straight stem
title_full Restoration of hip geometry after total hip arthroplasty: retrospective comparison of two short stems and one straight stem
title_fullStr Restoration of hip geometry after total hip arthroplasty: retrospective comparison of two short stems and one straight stem
title_full_unstemmed Restoration of hip geometry after total hip arthroplasty: retrospective comparison of two short stems and one straight stem
title_short Restoration of hip geometry after total hip arthroplasty: retrospective comparison of two short stems and one straight stem
title_sort restoration of hip geometry after total hip arthroplasty: retrospective comparison of two short stems and one straight stem
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9710174/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36451134
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-022-05923-4
work_keys_str_mv AT maurerertlwerner restorationofhipgeometryaftertotalhiparthroplastyretrospectivecomparisonoftwoshortstemsandonestraightstem
AT friesenbichlerjoerg restorationofhipgeometryaftertotalhiparthroplastyretrospectivecomparisonoftwoshortstemsandonestraightstem
AT pfannmichael restorationofhipgeometryaftertotalhiparthroplastyretrospectivecomparisonoftwoshortstemsandonestraightstem
AT maiermichael restorationofhipgeometryaftertotalhiparthroplastyretrospectivecomparisonoftwoshortstemsandonestraightstem
AT reinbacherpatrick restorationofhipgeometryaftertotalhiparthroplastyretrospectivecomparisonoftwoshortstemsandonestraightstem
AT leithnerandreas restorationofhipgeometryaftertotalhiparthroplastyretrospectivecomparisonoftwoshortstemsandonestraightstem
AT smollemariaa restorationofhipgeometryaftertotalhiparthroplastyretrospectivecomparisonoftwoshortstemsandonestraightstem