Comparative results of a distal modular sleeve, circumferential coating, and stiffness relief using the Anatomic Porous Replacement II.
retrospective_cohort · Level III
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 8792249.
- No licence information is recorded for this record.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
One hundred forty-eight primary Anatomic Porous Replacement II (APR-II, Intermedics Orthopaedics, Austin, TX) noncemented total hip arthroplasties were studied at follow-up periods of 2 to 5 years. Because the stem geometry has not changed since 1988, it was possible to study three adjunctive criteria for porous-coated hip arthroplasties. The APR-II stem geometry was used in three groups: APR-II stem in 56 hips, APR-IIS stem with distal sleeve in 44 hips, and APR-IIT stem with circumferential coating and hollow stem in 48 hips. The APR-IIT was followed 2 years; the APR-II and APR-IIS were followed an average of 3.4 years (range, 2-5 years). For comparison of the results within these three groups 2-year results were compared. The results of the APR-II and APR-IIS at the last follow-up examination are also reported. There was no statistical difference within the three groups for any clinical comparison: 82% had excellent results, 14% good, 2% fair, and 2% poor. At the 2-year follow-up examination, radiographic fixation of the APR-IIS was worse than that of the APR-II and APR-IIT (P < .0005). The APR-IIS uses a distal sleeve, which results in an adverse stiffness ratio between bone and stem. Fixation of the APR-IIT was better than that of the APR-II (P < .0005), probably because the APR-IIT had an increased volume and circumferential level of porous coating and was hollowed for stiffness relief. At final follow-up examination, fixation of the APR-IIS was still worse than that of the APR-II (P < .0005). There was no progressive loss of fixation for either the APR-II or APR-IIS between 2 and 5 years. Only 1 of 148 patients was revised for osteolysis. No other stem or acetabular component is loose. The adjunctive use of a modular sleeve seems to have little advantage, whereas stiffness relief of the stem seems to be beneficial. Circumferential porous coating seems the most important factor for durable fixation.
Medical subject headings
- Hip Prosthesis
Anatomy
- femur
- hip