Influence of Geometry and Extent of Coating ...
Document type :
Article dans une revue scientifique: Article original
PMID :
Permalink :
Title :
Influence of Geometry and Extent of Coating on Survival of Cementless Distal-Locking Revision Stems at 7 to 18 Years.
Author(s) :
Pommepuy, Thomas [Auteur]
Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire [CHU Lille] [CHRU Lille]
Putman, Sophie [Auteur]
METRICS : Evaluation des technologies de santé et des pratiques médicales - ULR 2694
May, Olivier [Auteur]
Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire [CHU Lille] [CHRU Lille]
Miletic, Bruno [Auteur]
Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire [CHU Lille] [CHRU Lille]
Ramos-Pascual, Sonia [Auteur]
Migaud, Henri [Auteur]
Marrow Adiposity & Bone Lab (MABLab) - ULR 4490
Marrow Adiposity & Bone Lab [MABLab] - ULR 4490
Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire [CHU Lille] [CHRU Lille]
Putman, Sophie [Auteur]

METRICS : Evaluation des technologies de santé et des pratiques médicales - ULR 2694
May, Olivier [Auteur]
Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire [CHU Lille] [CHRU Lille]
Miletic, Bruno [Auteur]
Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire [CHU Lille] [CHRU Lille]
Ramos-Pascual, Sonia [Auteur]
Migaud, Henri [Auteur]

Marrow Adiposity & Bone Lab (MABLab) - ULR 4490
Marrow Adiposity & Bone Lab [MABLab] - ULR 4490
Journal title :
The Journal of Arthroplasty
Abbreviated title :
J Arthroplasty
Volume number :
35
Pages :
3703-3709
Publication date :
2020-08-16
ISSN :
1532-8406
English keyword(s) :
revision THA
HA-coated stem
cementless stem
distal-locking stem
survival analysis
clinical outcomes
HA-coated stem
cementless stem
distal-locking stem
survival analysis
clinical outcomes
HAL domain(s) :
Sciences du Vivant [q-bio]
English abstract : [en]
Background
We aimed to compare the long-term clinical outcomes, complications, and survival of 2 revision stems with different geometries, extents of coating, and distal-locking mechanisms.
Methods
We retrospectively ...
Show more >Background We aimed to compare the long-term clinical outcomes, complications, and survival of 2 revision stems with different geometries, extents of coating, and distal-locking mechanisms. Methods We retrospectively compared outcomes at a minimum of 7 years following revision THA using 2 proximally coated distal-locking stems: 98 Ultime first-generation (G1) and 116 Linea second-generation (G2) stems. Ten-year Kaplan-Meier survival was assessed considering stem re-revision for any reason and for aseptic reasons. At final follow-up, Harris Hip Score and Oxford Hip Score were collected, and any thigh pain or complications were noted. Results Considering re-revision for any reason, survival was 69% for G1 stems and 91% for G2 stems. Considering re-revision for aseptic reasons, survival was 77% for G1 stems and 92% for G2 stems. Re-revisions were due to fracture of 6 G1 stems but no G2 stems. Complications that required reoperation without stem or cup removal occurred in 3 of the G1 stems and 1 of the G2 stems. Compared to the G1 stems, the G2 stems resulted in better Harris Hip Score (83 vs 71, P = .001), Oxford Hip Score (22 vs 27, P = .019), less thigh pain (4% vs 39%, P < .001), and fewer nonoperated complications (9% vs 15%). Conclusion The second-generation stem had significantly better survival and clinical outcomes than the first-generation stem. The differences in survival and clinical outcomes could be attributed to the larger coated surface of the G2 stem and to the fact that the G1 stem was originally intended as a temporary implant to be followed by de-escalation.Show less >
Show more >Background We aimed to compare the long-term clinical outcomes, complications, and survival of 2 revision stems with different geometries, extents of coating, and distal-locking mechanisms. Methods We retrospectively compared outcomes at a minimum of 7 years following revision THA using 2 proximally coated distal-locking stems: 98 Ultime first-generation (G1) and 116 Linea second-generation (G2) stems. Ten-year Kaplan-Meier survival was assessed considering stem re-revision for any reason and for aseptic reasons. At final follow-up, Harris Hip Score and Oxford Hip Score were collected, and any thigh pain or complications were noted. Results Considering re-revision for any reason, survival was 69% for G1 stems and 91% for G2 stems. Considering re-revision for aseptic reasons, survival was 77% for G1 stems and 92% for G2 stems. Re-revisions were due to fracture of 6 G1 stems but no G2 stems. Complications that required reoperation without stem or cup removal occurred in 3 of the G1 stems and 1 of the G2 stems. Compared to the G1 stems, the G2 stems resulted in better Harris Hip Score (83 vs 71, P = .001), Oxford Hip Score (22 vs 27, P = .019), less thigh pain (4% vs 39%, P < .001), and fewer nonoperated complications (9% vs 15%). Conclusion The second-generation stem had significantly better survival and clinical outcomes than the first-generation stem. The differences in survival and clinical outcomes could be attributed to the larger coated surface of the G2 stem and to the fact that the G1 stem was originally intended as a temporary implant to be followed by de-escalation.Show less >
Language :
Anglais
Audience :
Internationale
Popular science :
Non
Administrative institution(s) :
Université de Lille
CHU Lille
CHU Lille
Collections :
Submission date :
2023-11-15T08:22:11Z
2023-12-19T10:02:54Z
2023-12-19T10:02:54Z