Comparison of mid-term clinical and radiological results of short and conventional femoral stems in total hip arthroplasty

Abstract

Abstract This study aims to answer the question: Which are superior—conventional or short femoral stems?. An Optymis stem was used as a short-femoral stem, and an Accolade II stem was used as a conventional-femoral stem. There were 95 patients in the short femoral stem group (Group 1) and 90 in the conventional stem group (Group 2). The SF-36 Life Quality Score, thigh pain, and the Harris Hip Score were used to evaluate the patients’ clinical outcomes. Pre-operative, immediate post-operative, and final follow-up x-rays were used for radiological evaluation. Stem varus/valgus alignment, hip offset changing, acetabular anteversion/inclination changing, femoral migration, acetabular migration, periarticular ossification, and osteointegration evaluation were assessed for both groups. The mean follow-up time was 5.5 years for Group 1 and 5.2 years for Group 2. No significant difference existed between the two groups in terms of clinical scores (Harris Hip Score, SF-36). Thigh pain was significantly higher in Group 2 (p = 0.0001). As for radiological parameters, Group 1 exhibited more varus position-related results. In terms of angular stability, Group 1 was found to be more unstable than Group 2 (p = 0.0001). The power to reconstruct femoral offset was superior in Group 1. Periarticular ossification was more frequent in Group 2. Femoral osteointegration was denser proximally in Group 1 and distally in Group 2. When mid-term radiological and clinical results of both femoral stems are evaluated, they have no superiority over each other.

Keywords

• Hip replacement
• Femoral stem
• Short femoral stem
• Conventional femoral stem