Mid-term results of Exeter vs Endurance cemented stems

Area of Science:

• Orthopedic Surgery
• Biomaterials Science

Background:

• Cemented femoral stems are widely used in hip arthroplasty.
• Comparing different cemented stem designs is crucial for optimizing long-term outcomes.

Purpose of the Study:

• To compare the mid-term clinical performance of two distinct cemented femoral stem designs: the Exeter stem and the Endurance stem.
• To evaluate the incidence of aseptic loosening and the need for revision surgery for each stem type.

Main Methods:

• Prospective study of 118 Exeter stems and 34 Endurance stems implanted by a single surgeon.
• Utilized third-generation cement techniques via a lateral approach.
• Follow-up averaged 7.25 years for Exeter and 4.57 years for Endurance.

Main Results:

• The Exeter stem group experienced 0% revisions for aseptic loosening.
• The Endurance stem group had a 20.5% revision rate for aseptic loosening, with an average failure time of 3.72 years.
• Significant difference in aseptic loosening rates between the two stem designs.

Conclusions:

• The Exeter stem demonstrates excellent mid-term results, supporting its continued use in hip arthroplasty.
• The Endurance stem's poor early performance and high revision rate for aseptic loosening led to its discontinuation.
• Stem design and surface characteristics significantly impact the longevity of cemented femoral components.