The Journal of Hip Surgery 2019; 03(02): 078-085
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1681081
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Comparison of Patient-Reported Outcomes of Total Hip Arthroplasty between a Neck-Preserving Short-Stem Implant and a Conventional Neck-Sacrificing Implant

Stefany J. K. Malanka
1   Department of Research, Memorial Bone and Joint Research Foundation, Houston, Texas
,
1   Department of Research, Memorial Bone and Joint Research Foundation, Houston, Texas
,
Amir Pourmoghaddam
1   Department of Research, Memorial Bone and Joint Research Foundation, Houston, Texas
,
Mitchell Veverka
1   Department of Research, Memorial Bone and Joint Research Foundation, Houston, Texas
,
Stefan W. Kreuzer
1   Department of Research, Memorial Bone and Joint Research Foundation, Houston, Texas
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

13 August 2018

23 January 2019

Publication Date:
13 March 2019 (online)

Abstract

Femoral neck-preserving short- (NPS) stem implants for total hip arthroplasty (THA) bear several advantages over longer-stem implants, such as native hip structure preservation and improved physiological loading. However, there still is a gap of knowledge regarding the potential benefits of a short-stem design over conventional neck-sacrificing stems in regards to patient-reported outcomes (PROs). The authors investigated the differences in PROs between a neck-sacrificing stem design and NPS stem design arthroplasty. They hypothesized that PROs of NPS stem THA would be higher in the medium-term in comparison to the neck-sacrificing implant system. Neck-sacrificing implant patients (n = 90, age 57 ± 7.9 years) and a matched (body mass index [BMI], age) cohort group of NPS implant patients (n = 105, age 55.2 ± 9.9 years) reported both preoperative and postoperative hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome scores (HOOS). Average follow-up was 413 ± 207 days (neck sacrificing implant) and 454 ± 226 days (NPS implant). The authors applied multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) and Mann–Whitney tests for statistical analyses. Significance levels were Holm–Bonferroni adjusted for multiple comparisons. HOOS Subscores increased significantly after surgery independent of implant type (p < 0.001). There was a significant time by surgery interaction (p = 0.02). Follow-up HOOS subscores were significantly higher in the NPS implant group: symptoms (p < 0.001), pain (p < 0.001), activities of daily living (ADL; p = 0.011), sports and recreation (p = 0.011), and quality of life (QOL; p = 0.007). While long-term studies are required for further investigation, evidence from the current study suggests that NPS implants may provide a significant benefit to primary THA patients, which could be due to physiological loading advantages or retention of bone tissue.