Stemless hip arthroplasty versus traditional implants: a comparative observational study at 30 months follow-up

The aim of this retrospective case-control study is to evaluate clinical and radiographic results of short stems compared with traditional hip prostheses.

46 short stems (SS) and 50 traditional stems (TS) were selected. All the stems were implanted by the same surgeon using posterior approach because of primary osteoarthritis, post-traumatic osteoarthritis and avascular necrosis. All the patients were compared clinically by Harris Hip Score (HHS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), visual analogue scale (VAS), 12-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12F/M) and radiographically (offset, CD angle, limb length discrepancy, cup inclination, subsidence, osseointegration, heterotopic ossification). Radiographic evaluations were carried out by 3 different blinded surgeons. A statistical analysis was performed (chi-square, t-test, Mann-Whitney).

At a mean follow-up of 30 months all the implanted stems were well-positioned and osseointegrated. In both groups there was a marked improvement in pain (p < 0.001) with a statistically significant advantage in the SS group for WOMAC (90.8 vs. 87.5; p = 0.02) and in part for HHS (93 vs. 91.7; p = 0.18). The radiographic evaluations, with high concordance correlation between the 3 blinded surgeons (ICC consistently >0.80), showed no significant differences in the restoration of the articular geometry, with a reduction of cortical hypertrophy (2% SS vs. 7% TS) and periprosthetic stress-shielding (p < 0.05) in the SS group. On the other hand, SS were more related to limb length discrepancy (61% vs. 33%; p < 0.05). No major complications were recorded in the 2 groups.

Short stems were shown to be comparable or better than traditional implants at short-term follow-up.