Increased risk of periprosthetic fracture associated with decreased aseptic loosening in C-stem compared with the Charnley Elite Plus in primary total hip arthroplasty: a minimum 10-year follow-up study.

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders Pub Date : 2025-03-15 DOI:10.1186/s12891-025-08503-4
Shota Nakagawa, Shuichi Miyamoto, Takushi Nakatani, Chiho Suzuki, Taisei Kawamoto, Yoshiyuki Shinada, Satoshi Iida
{"title":"Increased risk of periprosthetic fracture associated with decreased aseptic loosening in C-stem compared with the Charnley Elite Plus in primary total hip arthroplasty: a minimum 10-year follow-up study.","authors":"Shota Nakagawa, Shuichi Miyamoto, Takushi Nakatani, Chiho Suzuki, Taisei Kawamoto, Yoshiyuki Shinada, Satoshi Iida","doi":"10.1186/s12891-025-08503-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Charnley stem design has evolved, with notable modifications from the 6th generation (Elite Plus) to the 7th generation (C-stem), potentially affecting load transmission and clinical outcomes. This study aimed to compare the clinical, radiological, and survival outcomes between the Elite Plus and C-stem.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective review was conducted on 131 primary total hip arthroplasties in 115 patients. A minimum 10-year follow-up was completed for 89 hips (78 patients) with the Elite Plus and 42 hips (37 patients) with the C-stem, with mean follow-ups of 15.8 and 11.7 years, respectively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The surgical procedures were hybrid arthroplasty with lateral and posterior approach for the Elite Plus group and cement arthroplasty with anterior and lateral approach for the C-stem group. In the Elite Plus group, five patients experienced dislocations and three developed aseptic loosening (AL); in the C-stem group, three cases of periprosthetic fracture (PPF) occurred. Four cases in the Elite Plus and two cases in the C-stem group required revision arthroplasty. The reasons for revision surgery were AL of the acetabular component in two cases and femoral AL in two cases in the Elite Plus group and PPF in two cases in the C-stem group. Radiolucent lines were significantly more frequent with the Elite Plus (33.7%) than with the C-stem (11.9%). After excluding three patients with extreme subsidence (≥ 3 mm) in the Elite Plus group, the average stem subsidence was found to be significantly larger with the C-stem (0.88 mm) than with the Elite Plus (0.17 mm) (p < 0.001, Mann-Whitney U test). With revision surgery due to any reason as the endpoint, the 10-year survival rates were 96.6% for the Elite Plus and 95.2% for the C-stem, showing no significant difference. However, survival rates differed significantly with PPF as the endpoint (100% for the Elite Plus vs. 92.9% for the C-stem, p = 0.01).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both stems achieved satisfactory 10-year outcomes. The Elite Plus stem showed more frequent loosening and radiolucent lines, whereas the C-stem demonstrated a stable cement-bone interface but had several PPF cases. Design differences likely contributed to these variations in outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":9189,"journal":{"name":"BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders","volume":"26 1","pages":"264"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11909823/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-025-08503-4","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The Charnley stem design has evolved, with notable modifications from the 6th generation (Elite Plus) to the 7th generation (C-stem), potentially affecting load transmission and clinical outcomes. This study aimed to compare the clinical, radiological, and survival outcomes between the Elite Plus and C-stem.

Methods: A retrospective review was conducted on 131 primary total hip arthroplasties in 115 patients. A minimum 10-year follow-up was completed for 89 hips (78 patients) with the Elite Plus and 42 hips (37 patients) with the C-stem, with mean follow-ups of 15.8 and 11.7 years, respectively.

Results: The surgical procedures were hybrid arthroplasty with lateral and posterior approach for the Elite Plus group and cement arthroplasty with anterior and lateral approach for the C-stem group. In the Elite Plus group, five patients experienced dislocations and three developed aseptic loosening (AL); in the C-stem group, three cases of periprosthetic fracture (PPF) occurred. Four cases in the Elite Plus and two cases in the C-stem group required revision arthroplasty. The reasons for revision surgery were AL of the acetabular component in two cases and femoral AL in two cases in the Elite Plus group and PPF in two cases in the C-stem group. Radiolucent lines were significantly more frequent with the Elite Plus (33.7%) than with the C-stem (11.9%). After excluding three patients with extreme subsidence (≥ 3 mm) in the Elite Plus group, the average stem subsidence was found to be significantly larger with the C-stem (0.88 mm) than with the Elite Plus (0.17 mm) (p < 0.001, Mann-Whitney U test). With revision surgery due to any reason as the endpoint, the 10-year survival rates were 96.6% for the Elite Plus and 95.2% for the C-stem, showing no significant difference. However, survival rates differed significantly with PPF as the endpoint (100% for the Elite Plus vs. 92.9% for the C-stem, p = 0.01).

Conclusions: Both stems achieved satisfactory 10-year outcomes. The Elite Plus stem showed more frequent loosening and radiolucent lines, whereas the C-stem demonstrated a stable cement-bone interface but had several PPF cases. Design differences likely contributed to these variations in outcomes.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
与Charnley Elite Plus相比,初次全髋关节置换术中C-stem无菌性松动减少与假体周围骨折风险增加:一项至少10年的随访研究
背景:Charnley杆的设计已经发生了演变,从第6代(Elite Plus)到第7代(C-stem)进行了显著的修改,这可能会影响载荷传递和临床结果。本研究旨在比较Elite Plus和C-stem的临床、放射学和生存结果。方法:对115例原发性全髋关节置换术患者131例的临床资料进行回顾性分析。Elite Plus的89髋(78例患者)和C-stem的42髋(37例患者)完成了至少10年的随访,平均随访时间分别为15.8年和11.7年。结果:Elite Plus组的手术方法为外侧和后路混合关节置换术,C-stem组的手术方法为前外侧入路水泥关节置换术。在Elite Plus组中,5例患者脱位,3例发生无菌性松动(AL);C-stem组发生假体周围骨折(PPF) 3例。Elite Plus组的4例和C-stem组的2例需要翻修关节置换术。翻修手术的原因为:髋臼假体AL 2例,Elite Plus组股骨假体AL 2例,C-stem组PPF 2例。Elite Plus(33.7%)显著高于C-stem(11.9%)。在Elite Plus组中排除了3例极端下沉(≥3 mm)的患者后,发现c -柄的平均下沉(0.88 mm)明显大于Elite Plus (0.17 mm) (p)。Elite Plus柱表现出更频繁的松动和放射线,而c -柱表现出稳定的水泥-骨界面,但有几个PPF病例。设计差异可能导致了这些结果的差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 医学-风湿病学
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
8.70%
发文量
1017
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of the prevention, diagnosis and management of musculoskeletal disorders, as well as related molecular genetics, pathophysiology, and epidemiology. The scope of the Journal covers research into rheumatic diseases where the primary focus relates specifically to a component(s) of the musculoskeletal system.
期刊最新文献
Diagnostic value of MRI in medial patellar plica: limited classification but link to cartilage injury. Surgical versus conservative management of Doyle type 4c mallet finger: a comparative study. Intra-operative fluoroscopic measurement accuracy for femoral tunnel aperture positions in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Effect of scapular stabilization and mobilization-based rehabilitation on pain and shoulder function in subacromial impingement syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. Retrospective analysis of platelet rich plasma injections for ankle osteoarthritis in athletic population.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1