nach oben

Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery

06.05.2024 | Hip Arthroplasty

Long-term outcomes of the mayo conservative hip system in patients aged 30 years or less with osteonecrosis of the femoral head: mean follow-up of more than 10 years

verfasst von: Masanori Nishi, Takashi Atsumi, Yasushi Yoshikawa, Ryosuke Nakanishi, Minoru Watanabe, Yoshifumi Kudo

Erschienen in: Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Introduction

Historically, total hip arthroplasty (THA) in very young patients has been associated with lower survivorship. However, the long-term outcomes of THA using short stems for osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH) in very young patients remain unclear. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the long-term outcomes of the Mayo conservative hip system, a short metaphyseal stabilised stem, in patients with ONFH aged ≦30 years.

Materials and Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 104 joints in 76 patients with ONFH who underwent THA using the Mayo conservative hip system with a minimum follow-up of 8 years. The mean follow-up period was 12.5 (range, 8–19) years. Patients were categorised into two age groups (≦30 years, n = 21 and > 30 years, n = 83). Radiographic evaluation was used to assess stem sinking, stress shielding, and spot welds. The clinical evaluations were performed using the Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) hip score. Postoperative major complication and revision surgery rates were also assessed.

Results

The patient characteristics were similar between the two groups, except for the age. Revision surgeries were performed in five cases, with similar implant survival rates between the groups. Dislocations occurred in the older age group alone (four joints). One case of intra-operative periprosthetic femoral fracture was found in the younger age group. Stem sinking of > 3 mm occurred in one and seven joints in the younger and older age groups, respectively. Spot welds were observed in most joints (93.2%) in modified Gruen zones 2 and 6 without significant differences between the groups. Stress shielding showed no significant differences in the frequency of occurrence or location between the two groups. Furthermore,the JOA score showed no significant difference between the two groups.

Conclusion

The use of short stems in patients aged ≤ 30 years with ONFH showed favourable long-term outcomes.

Ferguson RJ, Palmer AJ, Taylor A, Porter ML, Malchau H, Glyn-Jones S (2018) Hip replacement. Lancet 392:1662–1671. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31777-XCrossRefPubMed

Bayliss LE, Culliford D, Monk AP, Glyn-Jones S, Prieto-Alhambra D, Judge A et al (2017) The effect of patient age at intervention on risk of implant revision after total replacement of the hip or knee: a population-based cohort study. Lancet 389:1424–1430. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30059-4CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Rivière C, Vendittoli PA (2020) Personalized hip and knee joint replacement. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24243-5CrossRef

Chandler HP, Reineck FT, Wixson RL, McCarthy JC (1981) Total hip replacement in patients younger than thirty years old. A five-year follow-up study. J Bone Jt Surg Am 63:1426–1434. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-198163090-00008CrossRef

Radl R, Hungerford M, Materna W, Rehak P, Windhager R (2005) Higher failure rate and stem migration of an uncemented femoral component in patients with femoral head osteonecrosis than in patients with osteoarthrosis. Acta Orthop 76:49–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/00016470510030319CrossRefPubMed

Hailer NP, Garellick G, Kärrholm J (2010) Uncemented and cemented primary total hip arthroplasty in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop 81:34–41. https://doi.org/10.3109/17453671003685400CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Loppini M, Grappiolo G (2018) Uncemented short stems in primary total hip arthroplasty: the state of the art. EFORT Open Rev 3:149–159. https://doi.org/10.1302/2058-5241.3.170052CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Khanuja HS, Banerjee S, Jain D, Pivec R, Mont MA (2014) Short bone-conserving stems in cementless hip arthroplasty. J Bone Jt Surg Am 96:1742–1752. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.M.00780CrossRef

Banerjee S, Pivec R, Issa K, Harwin SF, Mont MA, Khanuja HS (2013) Outcomes of short stems in total hip arthroplasty. Orthopedics 36:700–707. https://doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20130821-06CrossRefPubMed

10.

Morrey BF (1989) Short-stemmed uncemented femoral component for primary hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 249:169–175. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-198912000-00018CrossRef

11.

Koo KH, Mont MA, Cui Q, Hines JT, Yoon BH, Novicoff WM et al (2022) The 2021 association research circulation osseous classification for early-stage osteonecrosis of the femoral head to computed tomography–based study. J Arthroplasty 37:1074–1082. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2022.02.009CrossRefPubMed

12.

Atsumi T, Kajiwara T, Hiranuma Y, Tamaoki S, Asakura Y (2006) Posterior rotational osteotomy for nontraumatic osteonecrosis with extensive collapsed lesions in young patients. J Bone Jt Surg Am 88(Suppl 3):42–47. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.F.00767CrossRef

13.

Leali A, Fetto J, Insler H, Elfenbein D (2002) The effect of a lateral flare feature on implant stability. Int Orthop 26:166–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-002-0355-3CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Pipino F, Molfetta L (1993) Femoral neck preservation in total hip replacement. Ital J Orthop Traumatol 19:5–12PubMed

15.

Sivaloganathan S, Maillot C, Harman C, Villet L, Rivière C (2020) Neck-sparing short femoral stems: a meta-analysis. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 106:1481–1494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2020.05.004CrossRefPubMed

16.

Ries C, Boese CK, Dietrich F, Miehlke W, Heisel C (2019) Femoral stem subsidence in cementless total hip arthroplasty: a retrospective single-centre study. Int Orthop 43:307–314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-4020-xCrossRefPubMed

17.

Brodt S, Matziolis G, Buckwitz B, Zippelius T, Strube P, Roth A (2020) Long-term follow-up of bone remodelling after cementless hip arthroplasty using different stems. Sci Rep 10:10143. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-67189-xCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Gruen TA, McNeice GM, Amstutz HC (1979) ‘Modes of failure’ of cemented stem-type femoral components: a radiographic analysis of loosening. Clin Orthop Relat Res 141:17–27. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-197906000-00002CrossRef

19.

Kuribayashi M, Takahashi KA, Fujioka M, Ueshima K, Inoue S, Kubo T (2010) Reliability and validity of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association hip score. J Orthop Sci 15:452–458. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00776-010-1490-0CrossRefPubMed

20.

Agrawal Y, Kerry RM, Stockley I, Hamer AJ (2021) Review of total hip arthroplasty in patients younger than 30 years: mid- to long-term results. Hip Int 31:533–541. https://doi.org/10.1177/1120700020901685CrossRefPubMed

21.

Shin EH, Moon KH (2018) Cementless total hip arthroplasty in young patients under the age of 30: a minimum 10-year follow-up. Hip Int 28:507–513. https://doi.org/10.1177/1120700017752339CrossRefPubMed

22.

Konopitski A, Okafor C, Smith B, Baldwin K, Sheth NP (2023) Evolution of total hip arthroplasty in patients younger than 30 years of age: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 143:1081–1094. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-022-04357-wCrossRefPubMed

23.

Kim YH, Park JW (2020) Eighteen-year results of cementless THA with alumina-on-HXLPE bearings in patients <30 years old: a concise follow-up of a previous report. J Bone Jt Surg Am 102:1255–1259. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.19.01157CrossRef

24.

Cornell CN, Salvati EA, Pellicci PM (1985) Long-term follow-up of total hip replacement in patients with osteonecrosis. Orthop Clin North Am 16:757–769. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0030-5898(20)30442-9CrossRefPubMed

25.

Hart A, Janz V, Trousdale RT, Sierra RJ, Berry DJ, Abdel MP (2019) Long-term survivorship of total hip arthroplasty with highly cross-linked polyethylene for osteonecrosis. J Bone Jt Surg Am 101:1563–1568. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.18.01218CrossRef

26.

Learmonth ID, Young C, Rorabeck C (2007) The operation of the century: total hip replacement. Lancet 370:1508–1519. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60457-7CrossRefPubMed

27.

Johannson HR, Zywiel MG, Marker DR, Jones LC, McGrath MS, Mont MA (2011) Osteonecrosis is not a predictor of poor outcomes in primary total hip arthroplasty: a systematic literature review. Int Orthop 35:465–473. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-010-0979-7CrossRefPubMed

28.

Iorio R, Healy WL, Presutti AH (2008) A prospective outcomes analysis of femoral component fixation in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 23:662–669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2007.06.009CrossRefPubMed

29.

van Oldenrijk J, Molleman J, Klaver M, Poolman RW, Haverkamp D (2014) Revision rate after short-stem total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review of 49 studies. Acta Orthop 85:250–258. https://doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2014.908343CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

30.

Hauer G, Vielgut I, Amerstorfer F, Maurer-Ertl W, Leithner A, Sadoghi P (2018) Survival rate of short-stem hip prostheses: a comparative analysis of clinical studies and national arthroplasty registers. J Arthroplasty 33:1800–1805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2018.01.017CrossRefPubMed

31.

Stulberg SD, Patel RM (2013) The short stem: promises and pitfalls. Bone Jt J 95:57–62. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.95B11.32936CrossRef

32.

Nieuwenhuijse MJ, Vehmeijer SBW, Mathijsen NMC, Keizer SB (2020) Fixation of the short global tissue-sparing hip stem. Bone Jt J 102-B:699–708. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.102B6.BJJ-2019-1026.R2CrossRef

33.

Chen HH, Morrey BF, An KN, Luo ZP (2009) Bone remodeling characteristics of a short-stemmed total hip replacement. J Arthroplasty 24:945–950. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2008.07.014CrossRefPubMed

34.

Kamada S, Naito M, Nakamura Y, Shitama T (2011) Total hip arthroplasty using a short stem: stem design, position and size influence the development of bone trabeculae and appearance of radiolucent lines around the stem. Curr Orthop Pract 22:52–58. https://doi.org/10.1097/BCO.0b013e3181f4b2bbCrossRef

35.

Zeh A, Radetzki F, Diers V, Bach D, Röllinghoff M, Delank KS (2011) Is there an increased stem migration or compromised osteointegration of the Mayo short-stemmed prosthesis following cerclage wiring of an intrasurgical periprosthetic fracture? Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 131:1717–1722. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-011-1342-1CrossRefPubMed

36.

Sychterz CJ, Claus AM, Engh CA (2002) What we have learned about long-term cementless fixation from autopsy retrievals. Clin Orthop Relat Res 405:79–91. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-200212000-00010CrossRef

37.

Dan D, Germann D, Burki H, Hausner P, Kappeler U, Meyer RP et al (2006) Bone loss after total hip arthroplasty. Rheumatol Int 26:792–798. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-005-0077-0CrossRefPubMed

38.

Arabmotlagh M, Rittmeister M, Hennigs T (2006) Alendronate prevents femoral periprosthetic bone loss following total hip arthroplasty: prospective randomized double-blind study. J Orthop Res 24:1336–1341. https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.20162CrossRefPubMed

39.

Arno S, Fetto J, Nguyen NQ, Kinariwala N, Takemoto R, Oh C, Walker PS (2012) Evaluation of femoral strains with cementless proximal-fill femoral implants of varied stem length. Clin Biomech (Bristol Avon) 27:680–685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2012.03.006CrossRefPubMed

40.

Falez F, Casella F, Panegrossi G, Favetti F, Barresi C (2008) Perspectives on metaphyseal conservative stems. J Orthop Traumatol 9:49–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10195-008-0105-4CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

41.

Morrey BF, Adams RA, Kessler M (2000) A conservative femoral replacement for total hip arthroplasty. A prospective study. J Bone Jt Surg Br 82:952–958. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.82b7.10420CrossRef

42.

Arnholdt J, Gilbert F, Blank M, Papazoglou J, Rudert M, Nöth U, Steinert AF (2017) The Mayo conservative hip: complication analysis and management of the first 41 cases performed at a University Level 1 department. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 18:250. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-017-1613-2CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Titel: Long-term outcomes of the mayo conservative hip system in patients aged 30 years or less with osteonecrosis of the femoral head: mean follow-up of more than 10 years
verfasst von: Masanori Nishi
Takashi Atsumi
Yasushi Yoshikawa
Ryosuke Nakanishi
Minoru Watanabe
Yoshifumi Kudo
Publikationsdatum: 06.05.2024
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery
Print ISSN: 0936-8051
Elektronische ISSN: 1434-3916
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-024-05339-w

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Die Highlights vom Kongress des American College of Cardiology 2024

Springer Medizin

Long-term outcomes of the mayo conservative hip system in patients aged 30 years or less with osteonecrosis of the femoral head: mean follow-up of more than 10 years

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and Methods

Results

Conclusion

Arthropedia

Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

TEP mit Roboterhilfe führt nicht zu größerer Zufriedenheit

Lever-Sign-Test hilft beim Verdacht auf Kreuzbandriss

Ein Drittel der jungen Ärztinnen und Ärzte erwägt abzuwandern

Aquatherapie bei Fibromyalgie wirksamer als Trockenübungen

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Die Highlights vom Kongress des American College of Cardiology 2024

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and Methods

Results

Conclusion

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Arthropedia

Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

TEP mit Roboterhilfe führt nicht zu größerer Zufriedenheit

Lever-Sign-Test hilft beim Verdacht auf Kreuzbandriss

Ein Drittel der jungen Ärztinnen und Ärzte erwägt abzuwandern

Aquatherapie bei Fibromyalgie wirksamer als Trockenübungen

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie