These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
Pubmed for Handhelds
PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS
Search MEDLINE/PubMed
Title: Bone-preserving total hip arthroplasty in avascular necrosis of the hip-a matched-pairs analysis. Author: Merschin D, Häne R, Tohidnezhad M, Pufe T, Drescher W. Journal: Int Orthop; 2018 Jul; 42(7):1509-1516. PubMed ID: 29569139. Abstract: PURPOSE: Short-stem hip arthroplasty has the potential advantage of femoral bone stock preservation, especially in view of the expected revisions in the often relatively young patients. Despite short-stem hip prosthesis are increasingly used for total hip arthroplasty, there are no sufficient mid- and long-term results especially for patients with avascular femoral head osteonecrosis. The present study investigates mid-term functional results as well as the revision rate following implantation of a short-stem prosthesis. METHODS: In the period 06/2005 until 12/2013, a total of 351 short-stem hip prostheses were implanted. The study included 331 complete data sets. A retrospective analysis was performed using the Oxford Hip Score. All revisions were registered. RESULTS: In a total of 331 prostheses, the Oxford Hip Score was "excellent" in 66.2%, "good" in 12.7%, "fair" in 13.0%, and "poor" in 8.2% with a mean follow-up of 57.4 months (SD ± 29.8; range 24-115). In 26 cases, aseptic osteonecrosis of the hip was the indication (7.9%). The Oxford Hip Score was "excellent" in 66.7%, "good" in 0.0%, "fair" in 20.8%, and "poor" in 12.5%. The cumulated five year survival rate was 96.7%. CONCLUSION: In mid-term observation, the Metha® short-stem prosthesis shows no disadvantage in functional outcome and in survival time compared to a standard hip stem. Providing a correct indication, the Metha® short stem is a valuable option in total hip arthroplasty for younger patients with avascular osteonecrosis of the femoral head. Evaluation has shown no significant differences between aseptic osteonecrosis and other indications.[Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]