The twenty-year survivorship of two CDH stems with different design features

George Digas1, George Georgiades, Kalliopi Lampropoulou-Adamidou

  • 1Orthopaedic Department, Xanthi Hospital, Xanthi, Greece.

Insights

The Harris CDH stem demonstrated a superior 20-year survival rate (78%) compared to the Charnley CDH stem (63%) in total hip arthroplasty for dislocated hips, reducing aseptic loosening. This finding aids in evaluating new designs for hip reconstruction.

Area of Science:

  • Orthopedic surgery
  • Biomaterials science

Background:

  • Anatomical abnormalities in dislocated hips necessitate specialized prostheses for proximal femur reconstruction during total hip arthroplasty (THA).
  • Previous THA studies highlight the need for effective femoral reconstruction in cases of hip dislocation.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To compare the long-term efficacy and survival rates of two specific CDH (congenital dislocation of the hip) stems: the Charnley CDH stem and the Harris CDH stem.
  • To evaluate the incidence of aseptic loosening as a failure endpoint for these stems in THA.

Main Methods:

  • Retrospective review of clinical records and radiographs from 50 patients (67 hips) treated with THA for low and high hip dislocations between 1987 and 1994.
  • Analysis of outcomes for 32 hips reconstructed with Charnley CDH stems and 35 hips with Harris CDH stems.
  • Assessment of survival rates at 20 years, with aseptic loosening as the primary failure criterion.

Main Results:

  • The Harris CDH stem exhibited a higher 20-year survival rate of 78% compared to the Charnley CDH stem's 63%.
  • Aseptic loosening was the reason for revision in 11 Charnley stems (average 14 years post-op) and 6 Harris stems (average 13 years post-op).

Conclusions:

  • The Harris CDH stem shows better long-term durability and a lower rate of aseptic loosening than the Charnley CDH stem in THA for dislocated hips.
  • These findings provide valuable data for the ongoing evaluation and development of femoral stem designs in hip reconstruction surgery.
Abstract