Comparison of short-stem versus conventional stem for hip arthroplasty in patients younger than 60 years: 7-14 years follow-up.

PURPOSE

Short-stem prostheses in hip arthroplasty have emerged as an alternative to conventional stems, especially in younger patients. The purpose of this study was to compare functional and radiological results of a short metaphyseal fitting cementless stem versus a conventional stem implant, in patients younger than 60 years.

METHODS

All patients operated from January 2006 to April 2013 were included, obtaining a minimum follow-up of 7 years. Harris Hip Score (HHS) and SF-36 (quality of life) questionnaires were applied and the presence of "thigh pain" was specifically assessed. We also compared complication rate, revision rate and average prosthesis survival. Femoral stress shielding (Gruen scale), stem subsidence, varus-valgus tilt and implant stability (Engh scale) were also compared.

RESULTS

A total of 101 short-stem and 74 conventional arthroplasties were included, with an average follow-up of 9.82 (7-14) years. HHS functional score and SF-36 were excellent in both implants and no significant difference between them (p > 0.05) was found. However, "thigh pain" was present in 7 patients with conventional stems and none with short-stems (p < 0.001). The survival rate at 13 years was 99%, for both implants, and no significant differences were found between them (χ(2) = 0.178; p = 0.673). Conventional stems had stress shielding at the greater trochanter in 72% of the cases and 43% at the calcar, being statistically superior (p < 0.001) to the stress shielding observed in the short stems.

CONCLUSION

According to our results, this short-stem seems to allow preservation of bone stock, with decreased stress shielding and also a lower incidence of thigh pain compared to conventional stems.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III retrospective comparative study.