4.6 Article

Grit-blasted titanium femoral stem in cementless primary total hip arthroplasty - A 5-to 10-year multicenter study

Journal

JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY
Volume 16, Issue 1, Pages 47-54

Publisher

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE INC MEDICAL PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1054/arth.2001.17940

Keywords

primary total hip arthroplasty; cementless stem; grit-blasted titanium; patient selection

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A total of 133 cementless primary total hip arthroplasties using the Zweymuller-Alloclassic grit-blasted titanium tapered stem were performed in 3 institutions. The patient cohort was divided into 2 subgroups. nonselected and selected, on the basis of excellent hone stock and age (<65 years old at surgery). Acetabular components were all cementless, and bearing surfaces were all alumina-ceramic on polyethylene, After a 7.3-year average follow-up period (range. 5-10 years), 118 primary femoral replacements in 109 patients could be reviewed fully. Mean age at surgery was 55.7 years (range, 27-84 years). According to the Merle d'Aubigne and Charnley rating system, clinical results were graded excellent and good in 89% of hips and fair in 11%. Radiologically, early subsidence >2 mm could be detected in 4 hips (3.4%). Calcar atrophy and spot welds were noted in 77% and 82% of hips. Femoral osteolysis granuloma was noted in 4 hips (3.4%). There has been no stem fracture and no ceramic head breakage. The survivorship at 10 years with definite femoral aseptic loosening (radiographic failure) as the endpoint was 100% (95% Wilson confidence interval, 78.4%-100%; worst scenario, 95.4%). A significant difference between the nonselected and selected patient subgroups was observed only for early reoperation (P = .03) and proximal stress shielding (P = .01). Press-fitting but not filling the femoral canal with a rough titanium, straight, tapered femoral component represents, at intermediate follow-up, a promising cementless option in primary total hip arthroplasty.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available