Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Maharat Nakhon Ratchasima Hospital, Chang Phueak Rd, Mueang District, Nakhon Ratchasima Province, 30000, Thailand.
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Amnatchareon Hospital, Muang Amnatchareon, Amnatchareon, 37000, Thailand.
Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2022 Jan;32(1):47-53. doi: 10.1007/s00590-021-02924-2. Epub 2021 Mar 12.
This study aimed to compare the clinical and radiographic mid-term results between short and conventional stems.
Patients with bilateral osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH) who had undergone bilateral staged THAs using short stem in one hip and conventional stem in the contralateral hip were included. The Harris Hip Score (HHS), thigh pain, patient's joint perception (PJP) and patients' preferred hip were recorded. Using x-ray, osseointegration and stress shielding were analyzed and compared between stems.
There were 35 cases (70 hips) with the mean age of 46.3 years (25-63), and the mean follow-up was 75.1 months (60-108). HHS was significantly improved in both short and conventional groups (p < 0.001). There was mild thigh pain in 2 cases (5.7%) of the short stem group and 6 cases (17.1%) of the conventional group. With regard to the PJP, we found slightly more natural joint feeling in the short stem group. Of the patients' preferred hip, 11 cases (31.4%) preferred short stem hip and 6 cases (17.1%) preferred conventional stem hip. The short stem group showed osseointegration mainly in the proximal part. The conventional stem group showed osseointegration mainly in the distal part. We found stress shielding grade 1 in 31 cases (88.6%) and grade 2 in 3 cases (8.6%) in the conventional stem group, whereas only grade 1 in 34 cases (97.1%) in the short stem group.
The clinical results were promising in both short and conventional stems; however, short stem showed less thigh pain, slightly more natural joint feeling (PJP) and more patients' preferred hip. The short stem provided more favorable results for proximal load transfer and slightly less stress shielding.
本研究旨在比较短柄和常规柄在中期的临床和影像学结果。
纳入双侧股骨头坏死(ONFH)患者,其中一侧髋关节采用短柄行双侧分期全髋关节置换术,对侧髋关节采用常规柄。记录 Harris 髋关节评分(HHS)、大腿疼痛、患者关节感知(PJP)和患者首选髋关节。分析并比较了两种柄的骨整合和应力遮挡情况。
共 35 例(70 髋),平均年龄 46.3 岁(25-63 岁),平均随访时间为 75.1 个月(60-108 个月)。短柄组和常规组的 HHS 均显著改善(p<0.001)。短柄组有 2 例(5.7%)、常规组有 6 例(17.1%)出现轻度大腿痛。在 PJP 方面,我们发现短柄组的关节感觉更自然。在首选髋关节方面,11 例(31.4%)患者更喜欢短柄髋关节,6 例(17.1%)更喜欢常规柄髋关节。短柄组的骨整合主要发生在近端,常规组的骨整合主要发生在远端。常规组有 31 例(88.6%)为 1 级应力遮挡,3 例(8.6%)为 2 级,而短柄组仅有 34 例(97.1%)为 1 级。
短柄和常规柄的临床结果均有良好的前景;然而,短柄组大腿痛较轻,关节感觉(PJP)略自然,患者更倾向于选择短柄髋关节。短柄髋关节在近端负重转移方面表现出更好的结果,应力遮挡略小。