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.

Comparison of single taper and dual taper versions of the same stem design in total hip arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

In total hip arthroplasty (THA), the outcomes of single taper (ST) and dual taper (DT) versions of the same stem design have been scarcely studied. A registry study comparing ST and DT versions of the same stem design was designed, aiming to assess: (1) the survival rates and the hazard ratios for failure; (2) the survival rates and the hazard ratios for failure using stem-focused endpoints.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A regional arthroplasty registry was interrogated about stem designs with ST and DT versions in cementless THAs performed for primary osteoarthritis. Only the same cup and ceramic-on-ceramic bearings were included: the DT stems had a titanium-on-titanium modularity. Demographic and implant features were recorded. Survival rates and hazard ratios were evaluated and compared. Stem-focused endpoints were also investigated.

RESULTS

A total of 5359 THAs were included, with three stem designs. The two versions of every stem showed different demographics and implant-related features: ST versions were preferentially implanted in heavier young men. For each stem, the two versions had similar survival rates at 5 years (p = 0.076; p = 0.319; p = 0.616) and similar adjusted hazard ratios for failures (p = 0.084; p = 0.308; p = 0.729). When stem-focused endpoints were adopted, the ST and DT versions of the three stems achieved similar survival rates (p = 0.710; p = 0.784; p = 0.983) and similar adjusted hazard ratios (p = 0.647; p = 0.858; p = 0.787). Three neck breakages occurred (0.0007% of all the modular implants).

CONCLUSIONS

ST and DT versions of the same stem design did not show any differences in terms of survival rates and hazard ratios for failures at 5 years.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Mid-term outcomes of revision hip arthroplasty due to titanium modular neck failure

INTRODUCTION

The current strategy for modular neck failures in total hip arthroplasty (THA) is calibrated on CrCo neck failures. Stem revision is usually required, but the procedure is challenging and achieves modest outcomes (up to 20% of re-revisions at short-term). No study reports revision strategies and outcomes after Ti neck failures. Aims of the study were to evaluate: (1) demographic and implant features of the cohort to be revised, (2) intra-operative findings and surgical revision strategies and (3) clinical and radiological post-revision outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Hospital database was enquired about revisions due to Ti neck failures in primary THAs. Sixty-five revisions were enrolled (all with the same modular system). Neck exchange was attempted as the first-line treatment. Patients were clinically and radiographically evaluated after revision.

RESULTS

The revision cohort encompassed fatigue neck fractures occurred 4.4 ± 2.6 years after THA: patients < 65 years and/or > 80 kg (98.5%) were predominant. Fifty-three neck exchanges were performed (81.5%). Eleven failures required stem revisions (16.9%), generally due to demanding neck extraction. Six complications occurred after neck exchange (11.3%), among them 2 acute infections requiring surgery (3.8%). Among stem revisions, one aseptic loosening and one neck re-fracture (18.5%) required re-revisions. At a mean follow-up of 7.1 ± 4 years, the neck exchange cohort achieved a mean HHS of 89.1 ± 6.3 (stem revisions: 84.1 ± 10.9).

CONCLUSIONS

Revisions for Ti neck failures were predominantly performed due to fatigue fractures. In case of failures, neck exchange is a feasible procedure in most of the cases, with good outcomes at 7 years.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, retrospective case series.