Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia (Jun 2014)

Evaluation of the results from proximal fixation of uncemented conical femoral components in Dorr type C femurs,

  • Munif Ahmad Hatem,
  • Bernardo Ferreira da Luz,
  • Rodrigo Nishimoto Nishi,
  • Paulo Gilberto Cimbalista de Alencar

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rboe.2014.02.007
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 49, no. 3
pp. 260 – 266

Abstract

Read online

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the results from proximal fixation of uncemented conical femoral components in patients with a type C proximal femur and compare them with the results obtained from type A and B femurs.METHODS: This was a retrospective study on 87 patients with 90 uncemented total hip arthroplasty procedures. Three patients (three hips) were excluded because their follow-up lasted for less than two years. The follow-up ranged from 2 to 4.3 years and the mean was 2.8 years. The Bicontact femoral implant model was used. The preoperative radiographs were evaluated, the femurs were classified as Dorr types A, B or C and the cortical indices were measured. The patients were evaluated clinically by means of the Harris Hip Score (HHS), before the surgery and at the last follow-up. The sequences of postoperative radiographs were compared regarding stability, complications and any signs of osseointegration of the femoral prosthesis.RESULTS: Among the 87 hips with follow-up greater than two years, 32 femurs were type A (37%), 37 type B (42%) and 18 type C (21%). Before the operation, the mean HHS was 39.4 for types A and B and 38.8 for type C. At the last follow-up, the mean HHS was 89.8 for types A and B and 86 for type C. None of the 87 femoral components had been revised by the time of the last follow-up; all of them were considered stable. In 86 cases, the radiographs showed signs of osseointegration.CONCLUSION: There were no significant differences in the clinical results or in the fixation (and osseointegration) of conical uncemented femoral prostheses with proximal porosity, among femurs with different types of femoral morphology according to the Dorr classification. This conclusion may vary if another implant model were to be used.

Keywords