4.7 Article

Comparing postoperative outcomes of two fully hydroxyapatite-coated collarless stems in total hip arthroplasty through propensity score matching analysis with 2 years follow-up

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 12, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-24569-9

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study compared the postoperative outcomes of patients who underwent THA using either the Corail collarless stem or the Hydra stem. The results showed no significant difference in clinical outcomes between the two groups at 2 years postoperatively. However, the Corail group had significantly less stem subsidence and a lower rate of 3rd degree or greater stress shielding.
A fully hydroxyapatite (HA)-coated stem such as Corail stem, that compacts the cancellous bone around the stem in total hip arthroplasty (THA), is reported to have good long-term results for more than 20 years. Although various fully HA-coated stems have being used recently, it is unclear whether there are differences in the postoperative outcomes. In this study, 224 patients (234 hips) with THA using either the Corail collarless stem or the Hydra stem were enrolled. And then we performed a retrospective comparison of the data at 2 years postoperatively using propensity score matching analysis. The postoperative modified Harris hip scores in 84 hips each group were 93.6 +/- 8.2 points in the Corail group and 92.8 +/- 10.1 points in the Hydra group, and there was no significant difference between the two groups. However, there was significantly less stem subsidence and rate of 3rd degree or greater stress shielding in the Corail group. Although these two stems were similar collarless fully HA-coated stems and clinical outcomes were favorable results in both groups at 2 years postoperatively, radiographic evaluations showed statistically significant differences between the two groups.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available