Femoral Bone Remodeling in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty with Use of Modular Compared with Monoblock Tapered Fluted Titanium Stems: The Role of Stem Length and Stiffness. (20th March 2019)
- Record Type:
- Journal Article
- Title:
- Femoral Bone Remodeling in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty with Use of Modular Compared with Monoblock Tapered Fluted Titanium Stems: The Role of Stem Length and Stiffness. (20th March 2019)
- Main Title:
- Femoral Bone Remodeling in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty with Use of Modular Compared with Monoblock Tapered Fluted Titanium Stems
- Authors:
- Huang, Yong
Shao, Hongyi
Zhou, Yixin
Gu, Jianming
Tang, Hao
Yang, Dejin - Abstract:
- Abstract : Background: To our knowledge, no previous studies have compared periprosthetic bone remodeling around monoblock versus modular tapered fluted titanium stems with different stem length and thickness. Methods: A retrospective comparative study was performed on 139 consecutive total hip arthroplasties (THAs) revised with a tapered fluted modular titanium stem and 114 consecutive THAs revised with a tapered fluted monoblock titanium stem. The latest follow-up radiographs were compared with immediate postoperative radiographs to assess bone restoration in residual osteolytic areas, femoral stress-shielding, spot-welds, and radiolucent lines. Diameter and medullary canal filling of the 2 stems were measured. Results: More patients in the monoblock group demonstrated osseous restoration than in the modular group (p = 0.009), and the modular stem exerted more severe stress-shielding on the femur (p < 0.001). Stem tip spot-welds developed in 88.5% of modular stems compared with 47.4% of the monoblock stems (p < 0.001). Spot-welds developed in 38.8% of modular stems at the modular junction. Partial or circumferential radiolucent lines were observed at the proximal segment of 30.9% of modular stems, compared with 14.0% of monoblock stems (p = 0.002). Conclusions: Compared with the longer and thinner monoblock stems, modular stems had less proximal osseous restoration in residual osteolytic areas and more severe femoral stress-shielding, stem tip spot-welds, and radiolucentAbstract : Background: To our knowledge, no previous studies have compared periprosthetic bone remodeling around monoblock versus modular tapered fluted titanium stems with different stem length and thickness. Methods: A retrospective comparative study was performed on 139 consecutive total hip arthroplasties (THAs) revised with a tapered fluted modular titanium stem and 114 consecutive THAs revised with a tapered fluted monoblock titanium stem. The latest follow-up radiographs were compared with immediate postoperative radiographs to assess bone restoration in residual osteolytic areas, femoral stress-shielding, spot-welds, and radiolucent lines. Diameter and medullary canal filling of the 2 stems were measured. Results: More patients in the monoblock group demonstrated osseous restoration than in the modular group (p = 0.009), and the modular stem exerted more severe stress-shielding on the femur (p < 0.001). Stem tip spot-welds developed in 88.5% of modular stems compared with 47.4% of the monoblock stems (p < 0.001). Spot-welds developed in 38.8% of modular stems at the modular junction. Partial or circumferential radiolucent lines were observed at the proximal segment of 30.9% of modular stems, compared with 14.0% of monoblock stems (p = 0.002). Conclusions: Compared with the longer and thinner monoblock stems, modular stems had less proximal osseous restoration in residual osteolytic areas and more severe femoral stress-shielding, stem tip spot-welds, and radiolucent lines around the stems, which were stiffer and had a shorter distal section. The stem diameter and stiffness (which were influenced by stem length, curvature, and modularity) determined bone remodeling patterns. Level of Evidence: TherapeuticLevel III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence. … (more)
- Is Part Of:
- Journal of bone and joint surgery. Volume 101:Number 6(2019)
- Journal:
- Journal of bone and joint surgery
- Issue:
- Volume 101:Number 6(2019)
- Issue Display:
- Volume 101, Issue 6 (2019)
- Year:
- 2019
- Volume:
- 101
- Issue:
- 6
- Issue Sort Value:
- 2019-0101-0006-0000
- Page Start:
- Page End:
- Publication Date:
- 2019-03-20
- Subjects:
- Bones -- Surgery -- Periodicals
Joints -- Surgery -- Periodicals
Orthopedics -- Periodicals
Orthopedics
General Surgery
Bone Diseases
Joint Diseases
Bones -- Surgery
Joints -- Surgery
Orthopedics
Bot (anatomie)
Gewrichten
Chirurgie (geneeskunde)
Periodicals
Electronic journals
Periodicals
617.47005 - Journal URLs:
- http://www.clinicalkey.com/dura/browse/journalIssue/00219355 ↗
http://www.clinicalkey.com.au/dura/browse/journalIssue/00219355 ↗
http://www.ejbjs.org/contents-by-date.0.dtl ↗
http://gateway.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=toc&D=ovft&MODE=ovid&NEWS=N&AN=00002060-000000000-00000 ↗
http://journals.lww.com/pages/default.aspx ↗ - DOI:
- 10.2106/JBJS.18.00442 ↗
- Languages:
- English
- ISSNs:
- 0021-9355
- Deposit Type:
- Legaldeposit
- View Content:
- Available online (eLD content is only available in our Reading Rooms) ↗
- Physical Locations:
- British Library DSC - 4954.250000
British Library DSC - BLDSS-3PM
British Library HMNTS - ELD Digital store - Ingest File:
- 9987.xml