Comparison of collum femoris-preserving stems and ribbed stems in primary total hip arthroplasty

Mingqing Li,Hua Liu,Jie Xie,Can Xu,Yihe Hu

doi:10.1186/s13018-018-0981-0

Abstract

BackgroundThis retrospective study investigated the relative benefits of using a collum femoris-preserving prosthesis or ribbed stem during total hip arthroplasty (THA).MethodsThe clinical results were compared of patients who underwent THA, between January 2010 and December 2012, with either a CFP prosthesis or a ribbed stem (66 and 75 patients, respectively, aged 43.4 ± 10.8 and 42.3 ± 9.8 years). Patients were assessed using the Harris Hip Score (HHS), Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12), and physical component summary (PCS) score. Intraoperative and postoperative complications and leg-length differences were noted.ResultsThe mean follow-up times of the CFP and ribbed groups were 67.2 ± 7.5 and 68.3 ± 7.2 months, respectively. The HHS, SF-12 MCS, SF-12 PCS, and WOMAC scores of the two groups were similar. The rates of periprosthetic femoral fractures and leg-length differences > 10 mm in the CFP group (10.6% and 13.6%, respectively) were significantly higher than those in the ribbed group (1.3% and 2.7%). The groups were similar regarding complications of osteolysis, ectopic ossification, dislocation, deep infection, deep venous thrombosis, thigh pain, and aseptic loosening. The survival rates of the CFP and ribbed groups were comparable (98.5% and 97.8%).ConclusionThe clinical results of the CFP and ribbed prostheses in young patients given THA were similar for Chinese patients. However, the CFP stem should be used with caution, given the high incidence of technical problems associated with implantation especially for Chinese patients.

Highlights

This retrospective study investigated the relative benefits of using a collum femoris-preserving prosthesis or ribbed stem during total hip arthroplasty (THA)
Whether the collum femoris-preserving (CFP) prosthesis is better than the ribbed stem for patients is still unknown, but the present study found that the CFP had no advantage over the ribbed stem
According to the data we found, the CFP prosthesis failed to exhibit any advantages over the ribbed prosthesis

Summary

Introduction

This retrospective study investigated the relative benefits of using a collum femoris-preserving prosthesis or ribbed stem during total hip arthroplasty (THA). Increasing numbers of patients are undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA) because of highly successful rates and good clinical results [1]. The femoral neck is the most solid structure of the proximal femur and the center of stress distribution for the hip joint. Retention of the femoral neck preserves the trabecular systems of the metaphyseal cancellous bone, which allows a more even distribution of the physiological load along the diaphysis. The collum femoris-preserving (CFP) short-stem prosthesis (Waldemar Link GmbH, Hamburg, Germany) is a. The present retrospective study compared the clinical results and complications of 66 patients who underwent THA with a CFP prosthesis, relative to 75 patients given a ribbed stem. Protecting the blood supply to the femoral neck permits increased bone ingrowth [2, 3].

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion