Comparison of the correction of the femoral offset after the use of a stem with modular neck and its monoblock homologue in total primary hip arthroplasty. / Comparación de la corrección del offset femoral tras el empleo de un vástago monobloque y un vástago con cuello modular en la artroplastia total de cadera primaria.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Dual modularity stems were introduced with the theoretical advantage of restoring hip anatomy more precisely through femoral offset and limb length adjustment. Interchangeable necks allow for intraoperative angulation, anteversion and length changes. Our objective is to study whether a better femoral offset correction is achieved with the H MAX-M® prosthesis (Limacorporate, San Daniele, Italy) compared to its monoblock counterpart. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A prospective cohort study was conducted by means of consecutive sampling on adult patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty with the diagnosis of coxarthrosis between January 2011 and December 2015. This cohort has two arms, one arm included patients who underwent modular neck arthroplasty and the other included patients who underwent monoblock total hip arthroplasty. Radiographic offset measurement of the operated hip and the contralateral hip was performed, and the difference between both values was calculated. The mean of the measurements obtained for each arm of the cohort were compared with each other. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were observed in the difference in offset between the operated hip and the contralateral hip (P=.323). No statistically significant differences were observed in the correction of the femoral offset, determined as the difference between the operated hip and the contralateral hip (P=.323). Nor were differences observed in the postoperative offset values (P=.097). It should be noted that for both designs, the majority group is the one with restored offset (P=.001).

Comparación de la corrección del offset femoral tras el empleo de un vástago monobloque y un vástago con cuello modular en la artroplastia total de cadera primaria / Comparison of the correction of the femoral offset after the use of a stem with modular neck and its monoblock homologue in total primary hip arthroplasty

Introducción y objetivos: Los vástagos con doble modularidad fueron introducidos con la ventaja teórica de restaurar de forma más precisa la anatomía de la cadera a través del ajuste del offset femoral y la longitud de miembros. Los cuellos intercambiables permiten cambios intraoperatorios de angulación, anteversión y longitud. Nuestro objetivo es estudiar si se consigue una mejor corrección del offset femoral con la prótesis H MAX-M® (Limacorporate, San Daniele, Italia) frente a su homólogo monobloque. Material y métodos: Se realizó un estudio de cohortes prospectivo mediante muestreo consecutivo sobre pacientes intervenidos de artroplastia total de cadera con el diagnóstico de coxartrosis desde enero de 2011 hasta diciembre 2015. Esta cohorte posee 2 brazos, un brazo incluyó a los pacientes intervenidos mediante vástago con cuello modular y el otro a los pacientes intervenidos mediante vástago monobloque. Se realizó la medición radiográfica del offset de la cadera intervenida, la cadera contralateral y se calculó la diferencia entre ambos valores. Las medias de las mediciones obtenidas para cada brazo de la cohorte se compararon entre sí. Resultados: No se han observado diferencias estadísticamente significativas en la corrección del offset femoral entre el grupo modular y monobloque, determinado como la diferencia de offset entre la cadera operada y la cadera contralateral (p=0,323). Tampoco se observaron diferencias en los valores de offset postoperatorio (p=0,097). Cabe decir que tanto para la prótesis modular como para la prótesis monobloque el grupo mayoritario es aquel con offset restaurado (p=0,001).(AU)

Introduction and objective: Dual modularity stems were introduced with the theoretical advantage of restoring hip anatomy more precisely through femoral offset and limb length adjustment. Interchangeable necks allow for intraoperative angulation, anteversion and length changes. Our objective is to study whether a better femoral offset correction is achieved with the H MAX-M® prosthesis (Limacorporate, San Daniele, Italy) compared to its monoblock counterpart. Material and methods: A prospective cohort study was conducted by means of consecutive sampling on adult patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty with the diagnosis of coxarthrosis between January 2011 and December 2015. This cohort has two arms, one arm included patients who underwent modular neck arthroplasty and the other included patients who underwent monoblock total hip arthroplasty. Radiographic offset measurement of the operated hip and the contralateral hip was performed, and the difference between both values was calculated. The mean of the measurements obtained for each arm of the cohort were compared with each other. Results: No statistically significant differences were observed in the difference in offset between the operated hip and the contralateral hip (P=.323). No statistically significant differences were observed in the correction of the femoral offset, determined as the difference between the operated hip and the contralateral hip (P=.323). Nor were differences observed in the postoperative offset values (P=.097). It should be noted that for both designs, the majority group is the one with restored offset (P=.001).(AU)

Comparison of the correction of the femoral offset after the use of a stem with modular neck and its monoblock homologue in total primary hip arthroplasty / Comparación de la corrección del offset femoral tras el empleo de un vástago monobloque y un vástago con cuello modular en la artroplastia total de cadera primaria

Introduction and objective: Dual modularity stems were introduced with the theoretical advantage of restoring hip anatomy more precisely through femoral offset and limb length adjustment. Interchangeable necks allow for intraoperative angulation, anteversion and length changes. Our objective is to study whether a better femoral offset correction is achieved with the H MAX-M® prosthesis (Limacorporate, San Daniele, Italy) compared to its monoblock counterpart. Material and methods: A prospective cohort study was conducted by means of consecutive sampling on adult patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty with the diagnosis of coxarthrosis between January 2011 and December 2015. This cohort has two arms, one arm included patients who underwent modular neck arthroplasty and the other included patients who underwent monoblock total hip arthroplasty. Radiographic offset measurement of the operated hip and the contralateral hip was performed, and the difference between both values was calculated. The mean of the measurements obtained for each arm of the cohort were compared with each other. Results: No statistically significant differences were observed in the difference in offset between the operated hip and the contralateral hip (P=.323). No statistically significant differences were observed in the correction of the femoral offset, determined as the difference between the operated hip and the contralateral hip (P=.323). Nor were differences observed in the postoperative offset values (P=.097). It should be noted that for both designs, the majority group is the one with restored offset (P=.001).(AU)

Introducción y objetivos: Los vástagos con doble modularidad fueron introducidos con la ventaja teórica de restaurar de forma más precisa la anatomía de la cadera a través del ajuste del offset femoral y la longitud de miembros. Los cuellos intercambiables permiten cambios intraoperatorios de angulación, anteversión y longitud. Nuestro objetivo es estudiar si se consigue una mejor corrección del offset femoral con la prótesis H MAX-M® (Limacorporate, San Daniele, Italia) frente a su homólogo monobloque. Material y métodos: Se realizó un estudio de cohortes prospectivo mediante muestreo consecutivo sobre pacientes intervenidos de artroplastia total de cadera con el diagnóstico de coxartrosis desde enero de 2011 hasta diciembre 2015. Esta cohorte posee 2 brazos, un brazo incluyó a los pacientes intervenidos mediante vástago con cuello modular y el otro a los pacientes intervenidos mediante vástago monobloque. Se realizó la medición radiográfica del offset de la cadera intervenida, la cadera contralateral y se calculó la diferencia entre ambos valores. Las medias de las mediciones obtenidas para cada brazo de la cohorte se compararon entre sí. Resultados: No se han observado diferencias estadísticamente significativas en la corrección del offset femoral entre el grupo modular y monobloque, determinado como la diferencia de offset entre la cadera operada y la cadera contralateral (p=0,323). Tampoco se observaron diferencias en los valores de offset postoperatorio (p=0,097). Cabe decir que tanto para la prótesis modular como para la prótesis monobloque el grupo mayoritario es aquel con offset restaurado (p=0,001).(AU)

Prótesis total de cadera primaria con par de fricción cerámica sobre cerámica de cuarta generación: resultados clínicos y de supervivencia con un seguimiento mínimo de 5 añosl / Primary total hip arthroplasty with fourth-generation ceramic bearings: clinical and survival results with a minimum follow-up of 5 years

Objetivo: Evaluar los resultados clínicos y la supervivencia de las prótesis de cadera primarias con par cerámica-cerámica (C-C) de cuarta generación implantadas en nuestro centro con un seguimiento mínimo de 5 años. Material y método: Se estudiaron 205 artroplastias primarias de cadera realizadas entre 2008 y 2012. Los resultados clínicos, prequirúrgicos y a los 5años de seguimiento fueron evaluados mediante el Harris Hip Score (HHS), el Short Form-36 (SF-36), el Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) y la escala analógica visual (EVA). Radiológicamente se estudiaron la posición de los componentes protésicos, la osteólisis periprotésica, el aflojamiento de los componentes protésicos y las roturas de los componentes cerámicos. Se registraron los eventos adversos relacionados con el par según su diámetro, con especial atención a las luxaciones protésicas y a la presencia de ruidos. La supervivencia con punto final como revisión protésica por cualquier causa fue estimada mediante el método de Kaplan-Meier. Resultados: Se obtuvieron mejorías significativas del HHS (88,7% de resultados buenos o excelentes), SF-36, WOMAC y EVA, p<0,001. Se presentaron 19 eventos adversos relacionados con la prótesis (4 fracturas periprotésicas, 4 luxaciones, 2 infecciones superficiales, 1 movilización del cotilo, 2 ruidos, 4 aflojamientos asépticos y 2 roturas del cuello protésico); el 47,3% necesitaron revisión. La supervivencia acumulada de las prótesis fue del 97,5% (IC95%: 96,4-98,5). No encontramos diferencias en la supervivencia, en eventos adversos protésicos, en la incidencia de ruidos o luxaciones y en los resultados clínicos entre los diferentes diámetros empleados. Conclusiones: Las prótesis primarias de cadera con par de fricción cerámica-cerámica de cuarta generación han mostrado una buena supervivencia a medio plazo y buenos resultados clínicos

Objective: To evaluate the clinical results and survival of primary hip prosthesis with ceramic delta bearings (C-C) with a minimum follow-up of 5years. Material and method: A total of 205 primary hip arthroplasties performed between 2008 and 2012 were studied. The clinical results, pre-surgical and at 5years of follow-up were evaluated using the Harris Hip Score (HHS), the Short Form-36 (SF-36), the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and the visual analogue scale (VAS). The position of the prosthetic components, periprosthetic osteolysis, loosening of the prosthetic components and ruptures of the ceramic components were studied radiologically. The adverse events related to bearings were recorded according to their diameter, paying special attention to prosthetic dislocations and the presence of noise. Survival with an endpoint of prosthetic revision for any cause was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Significant improvements were obtained in the HHS (88.7% of good/excellent results), SF36, WOMAC and EVA, P<.001. There were 19 adverse events related to the prosthesis (4 periprosthetic fractures, 4 dislocations, 2 superficial infections, 1 mobilization of the cup, 2 noises, 4 aseptic loosenings and 2 breaks of the prosthetic neck); 47.3% needed revision. The cumulative survival of the prostheses was 97.5% (95%CI: 96.4-98.5). No differences were found in survival, prosthetic adverse events, noise incidence or dislocations and clinical results among the different diameters used. Conclusions: Primary hip prostheses with fourth-generation ceramic bearings showed good survival in the medium term, and good clinical results

Primary total hip arthroplasty with fourth-generation ceramic bearings: Clinical and survival results with a minimum follow-up of 5 years. / Prótesis total de cadera primaria con par de fricción cerámica sobre cerámica de cuarta generación: resultados clínicos y de supervivencia con un seguimiento mínimo de 5 años.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical results and survival of primary hip prosthesis with ceramic delta bearings (C-C) with a minimum follow-up of 5years. MATERIAL AND METHOD: A total of 205 primary hip arthroplasties performed between 2008 and 2012 were studied. The clinical results, pre-surgical and at 5years of follow-up were evaluated using the Harris Hip Score (HHS), the Short Form-36 (SF-36), the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and the visual analogue scale (VAS). The position of the prosthetic components, periprosthetic osteolysis, loosening of the prosthetic components and ruptures of the ceramic components were studied radiologically. The adverse events related to bearings were recorded according to their diameter, paying special attention to prosthetic dislocations and the presence of noise. Survival with an endpoint of prosthetic revision for any cause was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Significant improvements were obtained in the HHS (88.7% of good/excellent results), SF36, WOMAC and EVA, P<.001. There were 19 adverse events related to the prosthesis (4 periprosthetic fractures, 4 dislocations, 2 superficial infections, 1 mobilization of the cup, 2 noises, 4 aseptic loosenings and 2 breaks of the prosthetic neck); 47.3% needed revision. The cumulative survival of the prostheses was 97.5% (95%CI: 96.4-98.5). No differences were found in survival, prosthetic adverse events, noise incidence or dislocations and clinical results among the different diameters used. CONCLUSIONS: Primary hip prostheses with fourth-generation ceramic bearings showed good survival in the medium term, and good clinical results.