We compared the radiological appearances and survival of four methods of fixation of a femoral stem in 538 hips after follow-up for five or ten years. The fixation groups were: 1) press-fit shot-blasted smooth Ti-A1-V stem; 2) press-fit shot-blasted proximally ridged stem; 3) proximal hydroxyapatite (HA) coating; and 4) cementing. Survival analysis at five to ten years showed better results in the HA-coated (100% at five to six years) and cemented stems (100% at 5 to 6 years) than in the two press-fit groups. There was a higher mean rate of migration in the smooth and ridged Ti-A1-V shot-blasted press-fit groups (0.8 mm/year and 0.6 mm/year, respectively) when compared with the HA-coated and cemented prostheses (both 0.3 mm/year). More radiolucent lines and osteolytic lesions were seen in the press-fit groups than in either the HA-coated or cemented implants, with a trend for a lower incidence of both in the HA compared with the cemented group. Proximal osteopenia increased in the press-fit and cemented prostheses with time, but did not do so in the HA group. There was a higher incidence of resorption of the femoral neck with time in the cemented group than in the other three. We conclude that the HA and the cemented interfaces both provide secure fixation with a trend in favour of HA. The cemented prosthesis meets the suggested National Institutes of Health definition of 'efficacious' at ten years.

We compared the radiological appearances and survival of four methods of fixation of a femoral stem in 538 hips after follow-up for five or ten years. The fixation groups were: 1) press-fit shot-blasted smooth Ti-Al-V stem; 2) press-fit shot-blasted proximally ridged stem; 3) proximal hydroxyapatite (HA) coating; and 4) cementing. Survival analysis at five to ten years showed better results in the HA-coated (100% at five to six years) and cemented stems (100% at 5 to 6 years) than in the two press-fit groups. There was a higher mean rate of migration in the smooth and ridged Ti-Al-V shot-blasted press-fit groups (0.8 mm/year and 0.6 mm/year, respectively) when compared with the HA-coated and cemented prostheses (both 0.3 mm/year). More radiolucent lines and osteolytic lesions were seen in the press-fit groups than in either the HA-coated or cemented implants, with a trend for a lower incidence of both in the HA compared with the cemented group. Proximal osteopenia increased in the press-fit and cemented prostheses with time, but did not do so in the HA group. There was a higher incidence of resorption of the femoral neck with time in the cemented group than in the other three. We conclude that the HA and the cemented interfaces both provide secure fixation with a trend in favour of HA. The cemented prosthesis meets the suggested National Institutes of Health definition of ‘efficacious’ at ten years.

No abstract

Therapeutic, IV.