Hip & pelvis

  • 제35권1호
  • /
  • Pages.40-46
  • /
  • 2023
  • /
  • 2287-3260(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2287-3279(eISSN)
대한고관절학회 (The Korean Hip Society)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Clinical and Functional Outcomes of the Exeter V40 Short Stem in Primary and Revision Arthroplasty: Does the Indication Affect Outcomes in the Short Term?

  • Nemandra Amir Sandiford (Joint Reconstruction Unit, Southland Hospital) ;
  • Scott M. Bolam (Joint Reconstruction Unit, Southland Hospital) ;
  • Irrum Afzal (Department of Orthopaedics, South West London Elective Orthopaedic Centre) ;
  • Sarkhell Radha (Department of Orthopaedics, South West London Elective Orthopaedic Centre)
  • 투고 : 2022.09.25
  • 심사 : 2022.12.22
  • 발행 : 2023.03.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Purpose: A variety of short Exeter stems designed specifically for use in performance of total hip arthroplasty (THA) in primary and revision settings have recently been introduced. Some have been used 'off label' for hip reconstruction. The aim of this study is to report clinical and radiological results from the Exeter V40 125 mm stem in performance of primary THA and revision THA. Materials and Methods: This study had a retrospective design. Insertion of 58 (24 primary, 34 revision) Exeter V40 125 mm stems was performed between 2015 and 2017. The minimum follow-up period was two years. Assessment of the Oxford hip score (OHS), EuroQol-5 Dimension (EQ-5D), and radiological follow-up was performed at one and two years. Results: In the primary group, the preoperative, mean OHS was 13.29. The mean OHS was 32.86 and 23.39 at one-year and two-year post-surgery, respectively. The mean EQ-5D-3L scores were at 0.14, 0.59, and 0.35, preoperatively, at one-year follow-up and two-year follow-up, respectively. In the revision group, the mean preoperative OHS was 19.41. The mean OHS was 30.55 and 26.05 at one-year and two-year post-surgery, respectively. The mean EQ-5D-3L scores were 0.33, 0.61, and 0.48 preoperatively, at one-year follow-up and two-year follow-up, respectively. No progressive or new radiolucent lines were observed around any stem at the time of the final follow-up in all patients in both groups. Conclusion: Encouraging results regarding use of Exeter V40 125 mm stems have been reported up to two years following surgery in primary and revision THA settings.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Sivananthan S, Arif M, Choon DS. Small stem Exeter total hip replacement: clinical and radiological follow-up over a minimum of 2.5 years. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2003;11:148-53. https://doi.org/10.1177/230949900301100208 
  2. Chiu KH, Shen WY, Cheung KW, Tsui HF. Primary Exeter total hip arthroplasty in patients with small femurs: a minimal of 10 years follow-up. J Arthroplasty. 2005;20:275-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2004.01.014 
  3. Stryker. Exeter V40 femoral stem surgical technique [Internet]. Stryker; 2014 [cited 2022 Jul 13]. Available from: www.strykermeded.com/media/1216/exeter-using-modular-broach-surgical-technique.pdf 
  4. Chiu KH, Cheung KW, Chung KY, Shen WY. Exeter small femoral stem for patients with small femurs. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2011;19:279-83. https://doi.org/10.1177/230949901101900303 
  5. Choy GG, Roe JA, Whitehouse SL, Cashman KS, Crawford RW. Exeter short stems compared with standard length Exeter stems: experience from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. J Arthroplasty. 2013;28:103-9.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2012.06.016 
  6. Williams HD, Browne G, Gie GA, Ling RS, Timperley AJ, Wendover NA. The Exeter Universal cemented femoral component at 8 to 12 years. A study of the first 325 hips. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2002;84:324-34. Erratum in: J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2002;84:1091. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.84b3.12261 
  7. Fowler JL, Gie GA, Lee AJ, Ling RS. Experience with the Exeter total hip replacement since 1970. Orthop Clin North Am. 1988;19:477-89. Erratum in: Orthop Clin North Am. 1989;20:preceding 519. 
  8. Hook S, Moulder E, Yates PJ, Burston BJ, Whitley E, Bannister GC. The Exeter Universal stem: a minimum ten-year review from an independent centre. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006;88:1584-90. Erratum in: J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89:421. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.88B12.18345 
  9. Beckenbaugh RD, Ilstrup DM. Total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1978;60:306-13. 
  10. Dorr LD, Faugere MC, Mackel AM, Gruen TA, Bognar B, Malluche HH. Structural and cellular assessment of bone quality of proximal femur. Bone. 1993;14:231-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/8756-3282(93)90146-2 
  11. Tai CC, Nam HY, Abbas AA, Merican AM, Choon SK. First series of Exeter small stem primary total hip arthroplasty minimum 5 years of follow-up. J Arthroplasty. 2009;24:1200-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2009.07.001 
  12. Hamilton DF, Ohly NE, Gaston P. Can Arthroplasty Stem INfluence Outcome? (CASINO): a randomized controlled equivalence trial of 125 mm versus 150 mm Exeter V40 stems in total hip arthroplasty. Trials. 2018;19:226. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-018-2621-8 
  13. Sandiford NA, Jameson SS, Wilson MJ, Hubble MJ, Timperley AJ, Howell JR. Cement-in-cement femoral component revision in the multiply revised total hip arthroplasty: results with a minimum follow-up of five years. Bone Joint J. 2017;99- B:199-203. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.99B2.BJJ2016-0076.R1 
  14. Quinlan JF, O'Shea K, Doyle F, Brady OH. In-cement technique for revision hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006;88:730-3. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.88B6.17037 
  15. Murray DW, Fitzpatrick R, Rogers K, et al. The use of the Oxford hip and knee scores. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89:1010-4. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.89B8.19424 
  16. Bilbao A, Garcia-Perez L, Arenaza JC, et al. Psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L in patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis: reliability, validity and responsiveness. Qual Life Res. 2018;27:2897-908. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1929-x 
  17. Gruen TA, McNeice GM, Amstutz HC. "Modes of failure" of cemented stem-type femoral components: a radiographic analysis of loosening. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1979;(141):17-27. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-197906000-00002 
  18. Learmonth ID, Young C, Rorabeck C. The operation of the century: total hip replacement. Lancet. 2007;370:1508-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60457-7 
  19. Wyatt M, Hooper G, Frampton C, Rothwell A. Survival outcomes of cemented compared to uncemented stems in primary total hip replacement. World J Orthop. 2014;5:591-6. https://doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v5.i5.591 
  20. Maggs J, Wilson M. The relative merits of cemented and uncemented prostheses in total hip arthroplasty. Indian J Orthop. 2017;51:377-85. https://doi.org/10.4103/ortho.IJOrtho_405_16 
  21. Westerman RW, Whitehouse SL, Hubble MJW, Timperley AJ, Howell JR, Wilson MJ. The Exeter V40 cemented femoral component at a minimum 10-year follow-up: the first 540 cases. Bone Joint J. 2018;100-B:1002-9. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.100B8.BJJ-2017-1535.R1 
  22. Evans J, Salar O, Whitehouse S, et al. Survival of the Exeter V40 short revision (44/00/125) stem when used in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA): analysis of the national joint registry (NJR). Orthop Proc. 2022;104-B(Suppl 4):25. https://online.boneandjoint.org.uk/doi/abs/10.1302/1358-992X.2022.4.025 
  23. Kjaergaard N, Kjaersgaard JB, Petersen CL, Jensen MU, Laursen MB. Thresholds for the Oxford Hip Score after total hip replacement surgery: a novel approach to postoperative evaluation. J Orthop Traumatol. 2017;18:401-6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10195-017-0465-8 
  24. Judge A, Arden NK, Kiran A, et al. Interpretation of patient-reported outcomes for hip and knee replacement surgery: identification of thresholds associated with satisfaction with surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012;94:412-8. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.94B3.27425 
  25. Beard DJ, Harris K, Dawson J, et al. Meaningful changes for the Oxford hip and knee scores after joint replacement surgery. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68:73-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.08.009 
  26. Rosenlund S, Broeng L, Holsgaard-Larsen A, Jensen C, Overgaard S. Patient-reported outcome after total hip arthroplasty: comparison between lateral and posterior approach. Acta Orthop. 2017;88:239-47. https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2017.1291100