International orthopaedics · 2024
Do all short stem types restore biomechanical parameters of the hip? Comparison according to femoral neck osteotomy levels.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Barça Fatih, Demir Ekin Barış, İbolar Mithat, Atilla Halis Atıl, Akdoğan Mutlu
Аннотация
PURPOSE: There is no consensus on ideal short femoral stem design. A classification system proposed by Feyen and Shimmin divides short stems in two types according to femoral neck osteotomy levels: subcapital (IIIA) and standard (IIIB). The study aims to determine which design type is more successful in restoring native biomechanical parameters and whether stem type has an impact on clinical results.
METHODS: In this retrospective comparative study, patients that have undergone short stem hip arthroplasty were evaluated according to stem types: type IIIA (n = 52, 66.7%) (Mathys Optimys) and IIIB (n = 26, 33.3%) (Implantcast Aida and Smith & Nephew SMF). Pelvis X-rays were assessed in terms of femoral neck length, horizontal and vertical hip centres of rotation, horizontal and vertical femoral offsets, abductor lever arm lengths, leg lengths, and stem-shaft angles. Improvement in Harris hip scores, differences between post-operative and pre-operative measurements, and stem-shaft angles were evaluated and compared between two groups.
RESULTS: Mean femoral neck resection (8.27 ± 6.68 mm in IIIA and 15 ± 6.33 mm in IIIB) was significantly different between both groups (p < 0.001). Harris hip scores were increased at post-operative six months in both groups with no difference (84.4 ± 6.4 and 84.6 ± 5.5, p = 0.4). The absolute values of differences between pre-operative and post-operative horizontal centres of rotation (p = 0.63), vertical centers of rotation (p = 0.75), horizontal femoral offsets (p = 0.78), vertical femoral offsets (p = 0.83), abductor lever arm distances (p = 0.63), and leg length (p = 0.21) measurements were not different between both groups. Stem positions were both varus with no statistically significant difference between groups (p = 0.14).
CONCLUSION: We found no difference regarding restoration of biomechanical parameters between short stem designs with different levels of neck osteotomy. Additionally, short stem can mostly result in varus component positioning regardless of the level of neck osteotomy.
METHODS: In this retrospective comparative study, patients that have undergone short stem hip arthroplasty were evaluated according to stem types: type IIIA (n = 52, 66.7%) (Mathys Optimys) and IIIB (n = 26, 33.3%) (Implantcast Aida and Smith & Nephew SMF). Pelvis X-rays were assessed in terms of femoral neck length, horizontal and vertical hip centres of rotation, horizontal and vertical femoral offsets, abductor lever arm lengths, leg lengths, and stem-shaft angles. Improvement in Harris hip scores, differences between post-operative and pre-operative measurements, and stem-shaft angles were evaluated and compared between two groups.
RESULTS: Mean femoral neck resection (8.27 ± 6.68 mm in IIIA and 15 ± 6.33 mm in IIIB) was significantly different between both groups (p < 0.001). Harris hip scores were increased at post-operative six months in both groups with no difference (84.4 ± 6.4 and 84.6 ± 5.5, p = 0.4). The absolute values of differences between pre-operative and post-operative horizontal centres of rotation (p = 0.63), vertical centers of rotation (p = 0.75), horizontal femoral offsets (p = 0.78), vertical femoral offsets (p = 0.83), abductor lever arm distances (p = 0.63), and leg length (p = 0.21) measurements were not different between both groups. Stem positions were both varus with no statistically significant difference between groups (p = 0.14).
CONCLUSION: We found no difference regarding restoration of biomechanical parameters between short stem designs with different levels of neck osteotomy. Additionally, short stem can mostly result in varus component positioning regardless of the level of neck osteotomy.