Differences in femoral component subsidence rate after THA using an uncemented collarless femoral stem: full weight-bearing with an enhanced recovery rehabilitation versus partial weight-bearing
Franziska Leiß, Julia Götz, Matthias Meyer, Günther Maderbacher, Jan Reinhard, Lukas Parik, Joachim Grifka, Felix Greimel
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Femoral component subsidence is a known risk factor for early failure of total hip arthroplasty (THA) using cementless stems. The aim of the study was to compare an enhanced recovery concept with early full weight-bearing rehabilitation and partial weight-bearing on stem subsidence. In addition, the influence of patient-related and anatomical risk factors on subsidence shall be assessed. METHODS: One hundred and fourteen patients underwent primary cementless THA and were retrospectively analyzed. Sixty-three patients had an enhanced recovery rehabilitation with early full weight-bearing and 51 patients had rehabilitation with partial weight-bearing (20 kg) for 6 weeks. Postoperative subsidence was analyzed on standing pelvic anterior-posterior radiographs after 4 weeks and 1 year. Subsidence was measured in mm. Anatomical and prosthetic risk factors (stem size, canal flare index, canal fill ratio as well as BMI and demographic data) were correlated. RESULTS: Femoral stem subsidence rate was significantly higher for the group with an enhanced recovery concept compared to the group with partial weight-bearing at the first radiological follow up after 4 weeks [2.54 mm (SD ± 1.86) vs. 1.55 mm (SD ± 1.80)] and the second radiological follow up after 1 year [3.43 mm (SD ± 2.24) vs. 1.94 (SD ± 2.16)] (p < 0.001, respectively). Stem angulation > 3° had a significant influence on subsidence. Canal flare index and canal fill ratio showed no significant correlation with subsidence as well as BMI and age. CONCLUSION: In the present study, cementless stem subsidence was significantly higher in the group with enhanced recovery rehabilitation compared to partial weight-bearing. Small absolute values and differences were demonstrated and therefore possibly below clinical relevance. Anatomical radiological parameters and anthropometric data did not appear to be risk factors for stem subsidence.