Subsidence analysis of a cementless short stem THA using EBRA-FCA - A seven-year prospective multicentre study

Analysis of Postoperative Complication and Revision Rates and Mid- to Long-Term Implant Survival in Primary Short-Stem Total Hip Arthroplasty

Background/Objectives: Short-stem prostheses were introduced as an alternative to conventional straight-stem prostheses. Despite their benefits, including minimally invasive approaches, soft-tissue- and bone-sparing implantation, and physiological load transfer to the metaphysis, data on postoperative complication and revision rates as well as on implant survival are scarce. Methods: A retrospective analysis of 1327 patients who underwent primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) using the Metha® short stem between 2006 and 2023 was conducted. Complication and revision rates were analysed for the intraoperative, direct postoperative, and follow-up episodes. Implant survival was analysed with the endpoint of all-cause stem revision. Results: Intraoperative complications were observed in 3.77% of the cases and included 44 hairline cracks and 6 fractures. In 15 cases (30.0%), conversion to a straight-stem or revision implant was necessary. The direct postoperative complication rate was 2.44%, and 11 revision procedures were performed during inpatient stay (0.84%). Mean follow-up was 7 years (range 1-17). During follow-up, femoral component revision was performed in 60 cases. Aseptic loosening and stem subsidence accounted for a combined percentage of 80% of all indications. Implant survival rate was 95.66% after 5 years, 95.58% after 10 years, and 95.50% after 15 years. Conclusions: Our study provides a comprehensive analysis of postoperative complication and revision rates in a large sample undergoing primary short-stem THA. Postoperative complication rates were favourable, and the long-term implant survival rates were comparable to conventional straight-stem prostheses. Therefore, short-stem THA may be considered an alternative for younger patients.

No significant differences in 60-day postoperative complication rates between conventional and shortened stems

PURPOSE

To compare 60-day complication rates, radiographic outcomes, and clinical outcomes following primary THA with conventional versus shortened stems, in a large cohort study.

METHODS

The authors reviewed a consecutive series of 800 primary THAs, of which 781 met the inclusion/exclusion criteria: 395 received a conventional stem and 386 received a shortened stem. Intraoperative and postoperative complications were noted. Radiographic and clinical assessments were performed preoperatively and 60 days after surgery.

RESULTS

Compared to conventional stems, shortened stems had significantly less intraoperative complications (2.8% vs 0.3%, p = 0.006), but no significant differences in complications that did not require reoperation (1.0% vs 1.3%, p = 0.620), complications that required reoperation without stem revision (2.0% vs 1.0%, p = 0.384), and complications that required stem revision (0.5% vs 0.5%, p = 1.000). Four hips (two from each group) required stem revision and were thus excluded from 60-day assessment. There were no significant differences between groups in subsidence ≥ 3 mm (1.0% vs 0.5%, p = 0.686), alignment (90.3%vs 86.7%, p = 0.192), net change in offset (within 3 mm, 32.3% vs 30.5%, p = 0.097), and limb length discrepancy (3.0 ± 2.6 mm vs 2.9 ± 2.4 mm, p = 0.695). Compared to conventional stems, shortened stems had significantly better preoperative mHHS (56.5 ± 18.5 vs 64.5 ± 13.5, p < 0.001), and significantly lower net improvement in mHHS (29.9 ± 17.1 vs 24.4 ± 15.0, p < 0.001), but no significant differences in postoperative mHHS (87.3 ± 11.9 vs 89.4 ± 9.6, p = 0.109).

CONCLUSIONS

There were no significant differences between conventional and shortened stems in terms of postoperative complication rates, radiographic outcomes, and postoperative mHHS. However, patients implanted with shortened stems had less intraoperative complications, but lower net improvement in mHHS.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, Retrospective comparative cohort study.