COMPARATIVE STUDY OF REVISION HIP ARTHROPLASTY AFTER SHORT STEM VERSUS AFTER CONVENTIONAL STEM

Abstract

AbstractObjectiveShort-stem total hip arthroplasty (THA) aims to preserve the proximal bone stock for future revisions, so that the first revision should resemble a primary intervention rather than a revision. This study aimed to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes in revision THA after failed short stem versus after failed conventional stem THA.MethodsThis study included forty-five patients with revision THA divided into three groups (15 each); group A: revision after short stem, group B: revision after conventional cementless stem and group C revision after conventional cemented stem. The studied groups were compared regarding 31 variables including demographic data, details of the primary and revision procedures, postoperative radiological subsidence, hospital stay, time for full weight bearing (FWB), preoperative and postoperative clinical scores.ResultsEarly stem subsidence (40%) was the main indication of revision in group A compared to peri-prosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs) (73.3%) and aseptic loosening (53.3%) in group B and C respectively (P=0.021). The mean time to revision was significantly shorter in group A (15 months) compared to 95.33 and 189.40 months in group B and C respectively. (P=0.005). Sixty % (9 patients) in group A were revised in the first year. The mean operative time, blood loss, postoperative blood transfusion and hospital stay were significantly lower in group A compared to group B and C (P<0.001, <0.001, 0.002 and 0.001 respectively). Revisions in group A were performed using either short stems (13.3%) or conventional stems (86.7%) whilst 80% of patients needed long stems and 20% of patients needed conventional stems in group B and C (P<0.001). The mean postoperative Harris Hip Score (HHS) at the latest follow up was 87.07, 87.53 and 85.47 in group A, B and C respectively. All PFFS had excellent results according to Beal's and Tower's criteria; all fractures healed and the implants were stable.ConclusionThe most common cause of failure of short stems is early stem subsidence. Short stem THA has specific indications and patient selection is very crucial. Preoperative templating for short stems and a detailed analysis of the individual patient anatomy in anteroposterior and lateral views are mandatory to predict the correct implant size more accurately. The use of intraoperative imaging can verify the sizing, implant position, and sufficient contact with the lateral cortex. Revision of short stem THA resembled the primary THA. If a standard implant can be used in a surgical revision instead of a longer revision stem, this can be considered as an advantage for the hip arthroplasty treatment concept. However, this only applies if the longevity of the first treatment with a short stem is comparable with that of a standard stem.Declaration of Interest(b) declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research reported:I declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research project.