header advert
You currently have no access to view or download this content. Please log in with your institutional or personal account if you should have access to through either of these
The Bone & Joint Journal Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from The Bone & Joint Journal

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Get Access locked padlock

Hip

A randomised trial comparing a short and a standard-length metaphyseal engaging cementless femoral stem using radiostereometric analysis



Download PDF

Abstract

This was a randomised controlled trial studying the safety of a new short metaphyseal fixation (SMF) stem. We hypothesised that it would have similar early clinical results and micromovement to those of a standard-length tapered Synergy metaphyseal fixation stem. Using radiostereometric analysis (RSA) we compared the two stems in 43 patients. A short metaphyseal fixation stem was used in 22 patients and a Synergy stem in 21 patients. No difference was found in the clinical outcomes pre- or post-operatively between groups. RSA showed no significant differences two years post-operatively in mean micromovement between the two stems (except for varus/valgus tilt at p = 0.05) (subsidence 0.94 mm (sd 1.71) vs 0.32 mm (sd 0.45), p = 0.66; rotation 0.96° (sd 1.49) vs 1.41° (sd 2.95), p = 0.88; and total migration 1.09 mm (sd 1.74) vs 0.73 mm (sd 0.72), p = 0.51). A few stems (four SMF and three Synergy) had initial migration > 1.0 mm but stabilised by three to six months, with the exception of one SMF stem which required revision three years post-operatively. For most stems, total micromovement was very low at two years (subsidence < 0.5 mm, rotation < 1.0°, total migration < 0.5 mm), which was consistent with osseous ingrowth. The small sample makes it difficult to confirm the universal applicability of or elucidate the potential contraindications to the use of this particular new design of stem.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B:595–602.


Correspondence should be sent to Dr. R. W. McCalden; e-mail:

For access options please click here