Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

We have evaluated the difference in the migration patterns over two years of two cementless stems in a randomised, controlled trial using radiostereophotogrammetric analysis (RSA). The implants studied were the Furlong HAC stem, which has good long-term results and the Furlong Active stem, which is a modified version of the former designed to minimise stress concentrations between the implant and bone, and thus to improve fixation. A total of 23 Furlong HAC and 20 Furlong Active stems were implanted in 43 patients. RSA examinations were carried out immediately post-operatively and at six, 12 and 24 months post-operatively. The subsidence during the first year in the Furlong HAC stem, was approximately one-third that of the Furlong Active stem, the measured mean subsidence of the femoral head at six months being 0.27 mm (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03 to 0.51) and 0.99 mm (95% CI 0.38 to 1.60), respectively (p = 0.03). One Active stem continued to subside during the second year. All hips, regardless of the type of stem were clinically successful as judged by the Oxford hip score and a derived pain score without any distinction between the two types of stem. The initial stability of the Furlong Active stem was not as good as the established stem which might compromise osseo-integration to the detriment of long-term success. The changes in the geometry of the stem, to minimise stress have affected the attainment of initial stability.

Original publication

DOI

10.1302/0301-620X.92B10.24399

Type

Journal article

Journal

J bone joint surg br

Publication Date

10/2010

Volume

92

Pages

1356 - 1362

Keywords

Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip, Cementation, Female, Femur, Foreign-Body Migration, Hip Prosthesis, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Prosthesis Design, Prosthesis Failure, Radiography, Reoperation, Treatment Outcome