MINIMA Short Stem Versus Standard Profemur (TL) Stem in Primary Total Hip Replacement: A Comparative Study.
femoral components
hip prostheses
minimal invasive surgery
minima® stem
serum markers
short-stem
total hip arthroplasty
total hip replacement
Journal
Cureus
ISSN: 2168-8184
Titre abrégé: Cureus
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101596737
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2022
Apr 2022
Historique:
accepted:
02
04
2022
entrez:
5
5
2022
pubmed:
6
5
2022
medline:
6
5
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The objective of our study was to compare a novel squared section, tapered design - with four conicity - short stem, the MINIMA® short stem with the cementless Profemur® TL standard femoral stem in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) in terms of functional outcomes, radiologic evaluation and other peri-operative and post-operative data. This is a comparative study including 46 patients undergoing primary THA. In 23 patients, the MINIMA® short stem was used. These patients were matched with another 23 patients in whom a cementless Profemur® TL standard femoral stem was used. The levels of the pain were evaluated according to the Visual Analog Scale/Numerical Rating Scale (VAS/NRS). The functional and clinical evaluation of the patients was performed with Harris Hip Score (HHS), Charnley's Hip score, EuroQol (EQ-5D)-(EQ-100), Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), and neuropathic pain questionnaire (DN-4). The rest of the comparison data included demographic data, the American Society of Anesthesiologists score (ASA), Charlson Index score, the pre-operative diagnosis, radiographic evaluation, the days of hospitalization, the operating time, incision length, blood loss, and blood transfusion requirements and complication rates. The two cohorts had comparable results regarding all patients' peri-operative data. The radiographic assessment revealed considerable higher levels of femoral offset and femoral subsidence for the MINIMA group, but within acceptable limits for both cohorts. The majority of the functional and other scores did not give strong prominence to one specific femoral stem. Our comparative study underlined the efficacy of the MINIMA® short stem, due to the fact that it revealed comparable and, in some cases, relatively better short-term outcomes compared with the TL standard femoral stem. Yet, more well-designed long-term research is required in order to further establish its effectiveness.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The objective of our study was to compare a novel squared section, tapered design - with four conicity - short stem, the MINIMA® short stem with the cementless Profemur® TL standard femoral stem in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) in terms of functional outcomes, radiologic evaluation and other peri-operative and post-operative data.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
METHODS
This is a comparative study including 46 patients undergoing primary THA. In 23 patients, the MINIMA® short stem was used. These patients were matched with another 23 patients in whom a cementless Profemur® TL standard femoral stem was used. The levels of the pain were evaluated according to the Visual Analog Scale/Numerical Rating Scale (VAS/NRS). The functional and clinical evaluation of the patients was performed with Harris Hip Score (HHS), Charnley's Hip score, EuroQol (EQ-5D)-(EQ-100), Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), and neuropathic pain questionnaire (DN-4). The rest of the comparison data included demographic data, the American Society of Anesthesiologists score (ASA), Charlson Index score, the pre-operative diagnosis, radiographic evaluation, the days of hospitalization, the operating time, incision length, blood loss, and blood transfusion requirements and complication rates.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The two cohorts had comparable results regarding all patients' peri-operative data. The radiographic assessment revealed considerable higher levels of femoral offset and femoral subsidence for the MINIMA group, but within acceptable limits for both cohorts. The majority of the functional and other scores did not give strong prominence to one specific femoral stem.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Our comparative study underlined the efficacy of the MINIMA® short stem, due to the fact that it revealed comparable and, in some cases, relatively better short-term outcomes compared with the TL standard femoral stem. Yet, more well-designed long-term research is required in order to further establish its effectiveness.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35509762
doi: 10.7759/cureus.23771
pmc: PMC9062282
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e23771Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022, Tottas et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1987 Jan;69(1):45-55
pubmed: 3818732
EFORT Open Rev. 2017 May 11;2(5):171-178
pubmed: 28630755
Pain. 1985 May;22(1):1-31
pubmed: 4011282
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003 Dec;(417):157-63
pubmed: 14646713
Injury. 2007 Jun;38(6):651-4
pubmed: 17477925
Bone Joint J. 2014 Apr;96-B(4):442-8
pubmed: 24692608
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011 Jan;469(1):200-8
pubmed: 20352383
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2002 Nov-Dec;10(6):385-92
pubmed: 12470040
Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 Oct;95(43):e5215
pubmed: 27787383
J Arthroplasty. 2006 Jun;21(4):503-7
pubmed: 16781401
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1999 Mar;81(2):273-80
pubmed: 10204934
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015 Sep 2;97(17):1386-97
pubmed: 26333733
J Arthroplasty. 2016 Apr;31(4):824-9
pubmed: 26411395
Clin Chem Lab Med. 2010 Jun;48(6):757-67
pubmed: 20518645
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989 Dec;(249):169-75
pubmed: 2582666
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2000 Apr;32(4):756-63
pubmed: 10776894
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1976 Nov-Dec;(121):20-32
pubmed: 991504
Int Orthop. 2011 Feb;35(2):149-50
pubmed: 21243356
Hip Int. 2019 Mar;29(2):118-127
pubmed: 30569737
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2010 Feb;130(2):269-75
pubmed: 19760225
Int Orthop. 2011 Feb;35(2):189-94
pubmed: 20814676
Hip Int. 2019 Mar;29(2):128-133
pubmed: 29739256
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998 Aug;80(8):1175-85
pubmed: 9730127
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011 Jun;469(6):1554-9
pubmed: 21108028
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1993 Mar;75(2):228-32
pubmed: 8444942
Lancet. 2007 Oct 27;370(9597):1508-19
pubmed: 17964352
Acta Orthop. 2014 Jun;85(3):250-8
pubmed: 24694271
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2020 Feb;140(2):247-253
pubmed: 31786645
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013 Oct;471(10):3262-9
pubmed: 23670671
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2020 Dec;106(8):1481-1494
pubmed: 32703717
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007 Jan;89(1):27-32
pubmed: 17200306
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011 Feb;93(2):178-83
pubmed: 21282755
J Arthroplasty. 2017 Dec;32(12):3652-3658.e1
pubmed: 28780222
Health Policy. 1996 Jul;37(1):53-72
pubmed: 10158943
J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373-83
pubmed: 3558716
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2009 May;95(3):210-9
pubmed: 19423418
Orthopedics. 2015 Mar;38(3 Suppl):S6-13
pubmed: 25826635
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1979 Jun;(141):17-27
pubmed: 477100
J Arthroplasty. 2018 Jun;33(6):1800-1805
pubmed: 29428465
Bone Joint J. 2015 Aug;97-B(8):1076-81
pubmed: 26224824
J Arthroplasty. 1999 Feb;14(2):159-64
pubmed: 10065720
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990 Aug;(257):107-28
pubmed: 2199114
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016 Jul;474(7):1697-706
pubmed: 27130649
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1973 Dec;55(8):1629-32
pubmed: 4217797
World J Orthop. 2020 Apr 18;11(4):232-242
pubmed: 32405472
J Arthroplasty. 2004 Oct;19(7 Suppl 2):10-6
pubmed: 15457412
Bone Joint J. 2013 Nov;95-B(11 Suppl A):57-62
pubmed: 24187354
J Clin Invest. 2003 Jun;111(12):1805-12
pubmed: 12813013
Int Orthop. 2012 Jul;36(7):1341-7
pubmed: 22262250
Anesthesiology. 1974 Dec;41(6):609-12
pubmed: 4433062
Anesthesiology. 1978 Oct;49(4):239-43
pubmed: 697077
Orthopedics. 2009 Sep;32(9):
pubmed: 19751019
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015 Feb;473(2):563-71
pubmed: 25138469
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006 Oct;88(10):2210-5
pubmed: 17015598
Surgery. 1962 Feb;51(2):224-32
pubmed: 21936146
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1969 Jun;51(4):737-55
pubmed: 5783851
BMJ Open. 2018 Sep 21;8(9):e021649
pubmed: 30244208
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014 Oct 15;96(20):1742-52
pubmed: 25320202
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004 May;86(5):963-74
pubmed: 15118039