Over ten-year follow-up results of a prospective and consecutive series of primary total hip arthroplasty with an original cementless total hip prosthesis

PURPOSE

High survival rates up to ten  years have been reported for non-cemented hip replacements. Publications beyond ten years have more diverse conclusions. To study the long-term survival of uncemented total hip replacement (THR), we examined a series of 125 THR, all with a minimum follow-up of ten  years.

METHODS

This is a prospective study of 203 patients operated for coxarthrosis between 2007 and 2011, by six senior surgeons. The original ellipsoidal stem and the impacted acetabulum were systematically cementless; the acetabulum had either a fixed ceramic or polyethylene insert, or a dual-mobility insert. At the date of the follow-up check, 44 patients were deceased and 34 patients were lost to follow-up. This left 125 complete files for our study.

RESULTS

They were a revision of the cup in four cases and a revision of the femoral stem in three cases (3.4%). The Kaplan-Meier cumulative survival rate of the THR, by considering revision for any reason as endpoint, at ten  years (120 months) is estimated at 96.6% (CI 92.7-98.7). Radiologically, on 86 analyses (68.8%) at ten  years and more reported, no significant evolution of the appearance of the cancellous bone around the acetabular cup was noted, nor any ossification. Some periprosthetic osteogenesis reactions were noted around the 1/3 distal but no periprosthetic edging.

CONCLUSION

In this minimum ten-year follow-up study, a cementless THR with a straight ellipsoidal cementless stem and a press-fit cup provides excellent implant survival and high patient satisfaction. (Clinically felt minimal difference.).

Stiffness after total knee arthroplasty: prevalence, management and outcomes

We investigated the prevalence of stiffness after total knee arthroplasty, and the results of the treatment options in our practice. Between 1987 and 2003, we performed 1188 posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasties. The prevalence of stiffness was 5.3%, at a mean follow-up 31 months postoperatively. The average age was 71 years (range, 54-88). The patients with painful stiffness were treated by two modalities: manipulation and secondary surgery. In the manipulation group (n:46), the mean range of motion improved from 67 degrees before manipulation to 117 degrees afterward. This improvement was maintained at final follow-up as 114 degrees. There was no significant difference between the motion, immediately after manipulation and at final follow-up. However, motion at final follow-up was better for those manipulated early to those done later (p=0.021). In the secondary surgery group (n:10), the mean gain in motion was 49 degrees at final follow-up and average pain score was found 43. Patellar problems--component loosening and clunk syndromes--were found in 4 patients (40%). Early manipulation gives better gain of motion than done later and our patients had not lost flexion during follow-up. The patella should always be evaluated in every stiff arthroplasty. In our opinion, patellar problems are a good prognostic factor for the success of revision surgery and open arthrolysis does not correct a limited flexion arc, but it does relieve pain. Arthroscopic release is not reliable for severely stiff knees and we prefer to perform it in less painful and moderately stiff knees within 3 to 6 months after operation.