Comparison of Patient-Reported Outcomes of Total Hip Arthroplasty between a Neck-Preserving Short-Stem Implant and a Conventional Neck-Sacrificing Implant

Stefany J. K. Malanka; Marius Dettmer; Amir Pourmoghaddam; Mitchell Veverka; Stefan W. Kreuzer

doi:10.1055/s-0039-1681081

The Journal of Hip Surgery, Table of Contents

The Journal of Hip Surgery 2019; 03(02): 078-085
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1681081

Original Article

Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Comparison of Patient-Reported Outcomes of Total Hip Arthroplasty between a Neck-Preserving Short-Stem Implant and a Conventional Neck-Sacrificing Implant

Authors

Stefany J. K. Malanka

¹Department of Research, Memorial Bone and Joint Research Foundation, Houston, Texas
Marius Dettmer

¹Department of Research, Memorial Bone and Joint Research Foundation, Houston, Texas
Amir Pourmoghaddam

¹Department of Research, Memorial Bone and Joint Research Foundation, Houston, Texas
Mitchell Veverka

¹Department of Research, Memorial Bone and Joint Research Foundation, Houston, Texas
Stefan W. Kreuzer

¹Department of Research, Memorial Bone and Joint Research Foundation, Houston, Texas

Abstract

Femoral neck-preserving short- (NPS) stem implants for total hip arthroplasty (THA) bear several advantages over longer-stem implants, such as native hip structure preservation and improved physiological loading. However, there still is a gap of knowledge regarding the potential benefits of a short-stem design over conventional neck-sacrificing stems in regards to patient-reported outcomes (PROs). The authors investigated the differences in PROs between a neck-sacrificing stem design and NPS stem design arthroplasty. They hypothesized that PROs of NPS stem THA would be higher in the medium-term in comparison to the neck-sacrificing implant system. Neck-sacrificing implant patients (n = 90, age 57 ± 7.9 years) and a matched (body mass index [BMI], age) cohort group of NPS implant patients (n = 105, age 55.2 ± 9.9 years) reported both preoperative and postoperative hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome scores (HOOS). Average follow-up was 413 ± 207 days (neck sacrificing implant) and 454 ± 226 days (NPS implant). The authors applied multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) and Mann–Whitney tests for statistical analyses. Significance levels were Holm–Bonferroni adjusted for multiple comparisons. HOOS Subscores increased significantly after surgery independent of implant type (p < 0.001). There was a significant time by surgery interaction (p = 0.02). Follow-up HOOS subscores were significantly higher in the NPS implant group: symptoms (p < 0.001), pain (p < 0.001), activities of daily living (ADL; p = 0.011), sports and recreation (p = 0.011), and quality of life (QOL; p = 0.007). While long-term studies are required for further investigation, evidence from the current study suggests that NPS implants may provide a significant benefit to primary THA patients, which could be due to physiological loading advantages or retention of bone tissue.

Keywords

total hip arthroplasty - neck-preserving - patient-reported outcomes

Full Text

References

References
1 Kim C, Linsenmeyer KD, Vlad SC. , et al. Prevalence of radiographic and symptomatic hip osteoarthritis in an urban United States community: the Framingham osteoarthritis study. Arthritis Rheumatol 2014; 66 (11) 3013-3017
2 March LM, Cross MJ, Lapsley H. , et al. Outcomes after hip or knee replacement surgery for osteoarthritis. A prospective cohort study comparing patients' quality of life before and after surgery with age-related population norms. Med J Aust 1999; 171 (05) 235-238
3 Soohoo NF, Farng E, Lieberman JR, Chambers L, Zingmond DS. Factors that predict short-term complication rates after total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010; 468 (09) 2363-2371
4 Patel RM, Stulberg SD. The rationale for short uncemented stems in total hip arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am 2014; 45 (01) 19-31
5 Wilkinson JM, Stockley I, Peel NF. , et al. Effect of pamidronate in preventing local bone loss after total hip arthroplasty: a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial. J Bone Miner Res 2001; 16 (03) 556-564
6 Duffy GP, Berry DJ, Rowland C, Cabanela ME. Primary uncemented total hip arthroplasty in patients <40 years old: 10- to 14-year results using first-generation proximally porous-coated implants. J Arthroplasty 2001; 16 (08) (Suppl. 01) 140-144
7 Pierce TP, Jauregui JJ, Cherian JJ, Elmallah RDK, Robinson K, Mont MA. Prospective evaluation of short and mid-term outcomes of total hip arthroplasty using the Accolade™ stem. Hip Int 2015; 25 (05) 447-451
8 Casper DS, Kim GK, Restrepo C, Parvizi J, Rothman RH. Primary total hip arthroplasty with an uncemented femoral component five- to nine-year results. J Arthroplasty 2011; 26 (06) 838-841
9 Issa K, Pivec R, Wuestemann T, Tatevossian T, Nevelos J, Mont MA. Radiographic fit and fill analysis of a new second-generation proximally coated cementless stem compared to its predicate design. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29 (01) 192-198
10 Rajakulendran K, Field RE. Neck-preserving femoral stems. HSS J 2012; 8 (03) 295-303
11 Pipino F, Molfetta L. Femoral neck preservation in total hip replacement. Ital J Orthop Traumatol Suppl 1993; 19 (01) 5-12
12 Thompson FR. Two and a half years' experience with a vitallium intramedullary hip prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1954; 36-A (03) 489-502
13 Mihalko WM, Assaf D, Sungu M. Reproducing the hip center with a femoral neck-retaining implant. Orthopedics 2015; 38 (3, Suppl): S21-S26
14 Yamako G, Chosa E, Totoribe K, Watanabe S, Sakamoto T. Trade-off between stress shielding and initial stability on an anatomical cementless stem shortening: in-vitro biomechanical study. Med Eng Phys 2015; 37 (08) 820-825
15 Small SR, Hensley SE, Cook PL. , et al. Characterization of femoral component initial stability and cortical strain in a reduced stem-length design. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32 (02) 601-609
16 Rubin LE, Ritterman SA, McTighe T. “Neck-sparing” total hip arthroplasty. In: Kinov P. , ed. Arthroplasty: Update. London, UK: InTech Open; 2013
17 Chen HH, Morrey BF, An KN, Luo ZP. Bone remodeling characteristics of a short-stemmed total hip replacement. J Arthroplasty 2009; 24 (06) 945-950
18 Dettmer M, Pourmoghaddam A, Kreuzer SW. Comparison of patient-reported outcome from neck-preserving, short-stem arthroplasty and resurfacing arthroplasty in younger osteoarthritis patients. Adv Orthop 2015; 2015: 817689
19 Gabarre S, Herrera A, Ibarz E, Mateo J, Gil-Albarova J, Gracia L. Comparative analysis of the biomechanical behaviour of two cementless short stems for hip replacement: linea anatomic and minihip. PLoS One 2016; 11 (07) e0158411
20 Kreuzer S, Leffers K. Direct anterior approach to total hip arthroplasty using computer navigation. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis 2011; 69 (Suppl. 01) S52-S55
21 Nilsdotter AK, Lohmander LS, Klässbo M, Roos EM. Hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score (HOOS)--validity and responsiveness in total hip replacement. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2003; 4: 10
22 Fitzgerald JD, Orav EJ, Lee TH. , et al. Patient quality of life during the 12 months following joint replacement surgery. Arthritis Rheum 2004; 51 (01) 100-109
23 Lenguerrand E, Wylde V, Gooberman-Hill R. , et al. Trajectories of pain and function after primary hip and knee arthroplasty: the adapt cohort study. PLoS One 2016; 11 (02) e0149306
24 Collins NJ, Roos EM. Patient-reported outcomes for total hip and knee arthroplasty: commonly used instruments and attributes of a “good” measure. Clin Geriatr Med 2012; 28 (03) 367-394
25 Karlson EW, Mandl LA, Aweh GN, Sangha O, Liang MH, Grodstein F. Total hip replacement due to osteoarthritis: the importance of age, obesity, and other modifiable risk factors. Am J Med 2003; 114 (02) 93-98
26 Hofstede SN, Gademan MGJ, Vliet Vlieland TPM, Nelissen RGHH, Marang-van de Mheen PJ. Preoperative predictors for outcomes after total hip replacement in patients with osteoarthritis: a systematic review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2016; 17 (01) 212
27 Thorey F, Hoefer C, Abdi-Tabari N, Lerch M, Budde S, Windhagen H. Clinical results of the metha short hip stem: a perspective for younger patients?. Orthop Rev (Pavia) 2013; 5 (04) e34
28 Stulberg SD, Patel RM. The short stem: promises and pitfalls. Bone Joint J 2013; 95-B (11, Suppl A): 57-62
29 Clement ND, , S Patrick-Patel R, MacDonald D, Breusch SJ. Total hip replacement: increasing femoral offset improves functional outcome. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2016; 136 (09) 1317-1323
30 Lecerf G, Fessy MH, Philippot R. , et al. Femoral offset: anatomical concept, definition, assessment, implications for preoperative templating and hip arthroplasty. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2009; 95 (03) 210-219
31 Schmidutz F, Beirer M, Weber P, Mazoochian F, Fottner A, Jansson V. Biomechanical reconstruction of the hip: comparison between modular short-stem hip arthroplasty and conventional total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop 2012; 36 (07) 1341-1347
32 Kamada S, Naito M, Nakamura Y, Kiyama T. Hip abductor muscle strength after total hip arthroplasty with short stems. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2011; 131 (12) 1723-1729
33 Sariali E, Klouche S, Mouttet A, Pascal-Moussellard H. The effect of femoral offset modification on gait after total hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop 2014; 85 (02) 123-127
34 Shafy TA, Sayed A, Abdelazeem AH. Study of the bone behavior around a neck preserving short stem implant: bone densitometric analysis over a span of two years. SICOT J 2016; 2 (01) 31
35 Schmidutz F, Graf T, Mazoochian F, Fottner A, Bauer-Melnyk A, Jansson V. Migration analysis of a metaphyseal anchored short-stem hip prosthesis. Acta Orthop 2012; 83 (04) 360-365
36 Kolisek FR, Chughtai M, Mistry JB. , et al. Outcomes of second-generation tapered wedge femoral stem. Surg Technol Int 2016; 28: 275-279
37 Kim Y-H, Park J-W, Kim J-S, Kang J-S. Long-term results and bone remodeling after THA with a short, metaphyseal-fitting anatomic cementless stem. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014; 472 (03) 943-950
38 Henry BM, Wrażeń W, Hynnekleiv L. , et al. Health-related quality-of-life and functional outcomes in short-stem versus standard-stem total hip arthroplasty: an 18-month follow-up cohort study. Med Sci Monit 2016; 22: 4406-4414