Mid-Term Results After 517 Primary Total Hip Arthroplasties With a Shortened and Shoulderless Double-Taper Press-Fit Stem: High Rates of Aseptic Loosening

Femoral stem taper geometry and porous coating in cementless direct anterior primary total hip arthroplasty

Objective

This study aims to compare the clinical outcomes and complications between a fully coated, dual-tapered hip stem versus a proximally coated, triple-tapered hip stem in patients undergoing cementless direct anterior (DA) primary total hip arthroplasty (THA).

Methods

A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients who underwent primary THA with either a fully coated, dual-tapered hip stem or a proximally coated, triple-tapered stem with at least a 1-year follow up. Exclusion criteria included any patients that did not receive either femoral stem, those undergoing bilateral THA, those with a surgical approach other than DA, those with an indication other than osteoarthritis, avascular necrosis (AVN), or femoral neck fracture, and those that had a cemented femoral component. Complications and clinical outcomes were assessed. Statistical analyses were conducted to identify significant differences between the groups.

Results

A total of 95 patients were included in the study. The average ages for the dual-tapered and triple-tapered stem cohorts were 63.6 and 59.5, respectively (p = 0.168). At 1-year follow-up, no significant differences were seen between the groups in terms of ambulatory status, ROM, and patient satisfaction (p = 0.414, p = 0.106, and p = 0.126). 6 (18 %) of the patients receiving the dual-tapered, fully coated hip stem had at least one complication while 8 (13 %) of the triple-tapered, proximally coated hip stem patients did (p = 0.550).

Conclusion

Both hip stem cohorts demonstrated comparable clinical outcomes and complication rates in patients undergoing primary DA THA and we believe that either hip stem may be a reasonable choice for patients. Future studies with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up periods are warranted to validate these findings.

Selecting a Press-fit Stem for Total Hip Arthroplasty: The Rationale and Evolution of the Modern Femoral Prosthesis

Noncemented press-fit femoral stems predominate in total hip arthroplasty for all age groups with generally excellent long-term survivorship. The 2021 American Joint Replacement Registry reports that 96% of all elective primary total hip arthroplasties used noncemented femoral implant fixation. 1 Today, there are many styles of press-fit stems, each with supposed benefits, based on a range of design philosophies. Design aspects to consider when selecting a stem are numerous, including stem geometry, stem length, collared or collarless, material properties, and surface structure. Although most stem designs demonstrate excellent results, the differences in stem designs are intimately linked to additional factors such as ease of use/implantation, percentage of surface osseointegration, overall bone removal versus bone stock preservation, subsequent femoral stress shielding, and consideration of complexity of later revision. A surgeon with a broad understanding and appreciation of femoral stem designs should be prepared to select between the multitude of options to best serve individual patients.

External validation of the Tyrolean hip arthroplasty registry

PURPOSE

Arthroplasty registries gained increasing importance to the re-certification of orthopaedic implants according to the European Union (EU) Medical Device Regulation (MDR) adopted in 2017. Until recently, several European countries only had regional arthroplasty registries. Whether regional registries deliver data quality comparable with national registries remained unclear. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to validate the Austrian Tyrolean Hip Arthroplasty Registry (THAR) and to evaluate if this regional registry showed adequate adherence, completeness and correctness when compared with well-established national registries.

METHODS

A consecutive series of 1100 primary total hip arthroplasties were identified from our institution's medical database. Patients were interviewed by phone and completed questionnaires after a mean follow-up period of 8.05 years and were asked if they had had revision surgeries. The data were compared to the corresponding dataset from the THAR.

RESULTS

Adherence was 97.91% for primary total hip arthroplasty. Clinical follow-up identified 10 missing cases, resulting in adherence of 81.48% for revisions. Completeness of patient-reported outcome measurements was 78.55% before surgery and 84.45% 1 year after surgery. Correctness was 99.7% for demographic data, 99.54% for implant specifications, and 99.35% for mode of fixation.

CONCLUSION

The data of this study showed that regional arthroplasty registries can deliver data quality comparable with well-established national registries. The main reason for unrecorded revision cases and wrongly recoded implants was human error. Further digitalization with more automatic data submission may have the potential to reduce these failure rates in the future. Overall, the THAR represents a valid data source for re-certification of medical implants according to the EU's MDR.

How to Prevent Aseptic Loosening in Cementless Arthroplasty: A Review

Aseptic loosening is the main late postoperative complication of cementless total hip arthroplasties (THAs), leading to pain and functional impairment. This article aims to update the orthopedic surgeon on the various methods by which the aseptic loosening rate can be reduced. We performed a systematic review by searching the PubMed database for hip aseptic loosening. We included meta-analysis, randomized controlled trials, reviews, and systematic reviews in the last 10 years, which provided information on techniques that can prevent aseptic loosening in total hip arthroplasty. From a total of 3205 articles identified, 69 articles (2%) met the inclusion criteria, leading to a total of 36 recommendations. A lot of research has been conducted in terms of septic loosening in the last decade. Currently, we have various techniques by which we can reduce the rate of aseptic loosening. Nevertheless, further randomized clinical trials are needed to expand the recommendations for aseptic loosening prevention.