ACE Report Cover
Radiostereometric analysis: no additional benefit of Unique femoral stem compared to AGB-I
Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report
Language
Download Download Download
Download
Cite this Report Cite this Report Cite this Report
Cite
Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites
+ Favorites
Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report
Language
Download Download Download
Download
Cite this Report Cite this Report Cite this Report
Cite
Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites
+ Favorites
ARTHROPLASTY
Radiostereometric analysis: no additional benefit of Unique femoral stem compared to AGB-I .

OrthoEvidence Journal (OE Journal) - ACE Report

OE Journal. 2014;2(13):9 Acta Orthop. 2014 Apr;85(2):152-8

100 patients with primary or secondary osteoarthritis were randomized to investigate any additional benefits associated with the use of the Unique customized stem compared with the conventional ABG-I stem. Patients were evaluated over 5 years using radiostereometric (RSA). The evidence presented in this study revealed no improvement in long-term mechanical stability associated with the Unique stem. It is important to note that no included patients presented with abnormal geometry of the upper femur for which the custom stems are developed.


Publication Funding Details +
Funding:
Non-funded
Conflicts:
Other

Risk of Bias

6.5/10

Reporting Criteria

17/20

Fragility Index

N/A

Was the allocation sequence adequately generated?

Was allocation adequately concealed?

Blinding Treatment Providers: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?

Blinding Outcome Assessors: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?

Blinding Patients: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?

Was loss to follow-up (missing outcome data) infrequent?

Are reports of the study free of suggestion of selective outcome reporting?

Were outcomes objective, patient-important and assessed in a manner to limit bias (ie. duplicate assessors, Independent assessors)?

Was the sample size sufficiently large to assure a balance of prognosis and sufficiently large number of outcome events?

Was investigator expertise/experience with both treatment and control techniques likely the same (ie.were criteria for surgeon participation/expertise provided)?

Yes = 1

Uncertain = 0.5

Not Relevant = 0

No = 0

The Reporting Criteria Assessment evaluates the transparency with which authors report the methodological and trial characteristics of the trial within the publication. The assessment is divided into five categories which are presented below.

3/4

Randomization

3/4

Outcome Measurements

4/4

Inclusion / Exclusion

4/4

Therapy Description

3/4

Statistics

Detsky AS, Naylor CD, O'Rourke K, McGeer AJ, L'Abbé KA. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:255-65

The Fragility Index is a tool that aids in the interpretation of significant findings, providing a measure of strength for a result. The Fragility Index represents the number of consecutive events that need to be added to a dichotomous outcome to make the finding no longer significant. A small number represents a weaker finding and a large number represents a stronger finding.

Why was this study needed now?

Micromovements along the implant-bone interface are associated with loosening of uncemented femoral stem implants. Generally speaking, a 40 micrometer interfacial motion contributes to partial bone ingrowth, and those exceeding 150 micrometers completely disrupts ingrowth. Mechanical stability of the implant is influenced by patient- and implant-specific factors, and uncemented customized femoral stems are hypothesized to promote superior mechanical fixation compared to standard implants. This study was needed to conduct radiostereometric (RSA) follow-up on a 5 year RCT that evaluated the Unique customized stem (Scandinavian Customized Prosthesis [SCP]), against a conventional ABG-I stem.

What was the principal research question?

What is the comparative migration between the use of the Unique customized stem, and the conventional ABG-I stem, as evaluated using radiostereometric (RSA) over 5 years?

Study Characteristics +
Population:
100 patients with primary or secondary osteoarthritis, who were classified as having regular upper femoral anatomy. Following the femoral surgery, all patients underwent the same rehabilitation protocol: all patients were allowed full weight bearing immediately after surgery but were advised to use crutches for 8 weeks. (n=80 at final follow-up)
Intervention:
Unique Femoral Stem Group: Patients underwent surgery in lateral decubitus position, and a direct lateral approach. The custom design of the Unique stem was based on CT scans of the proximal femur, and developed using a semiautomatic computer algorithm.(n=50; 41 at 5 years)
Comparison:
ABG-I Stem Group: Patients underwent surgery in lateral decubitus position, and a direct lateral approach. The ABG-I stem had an anatomical press-fit design with plasma-sprayed HA layer with a macro-relief surface on the proximal third. (n=50; 39 at 5 years)
Outcomes:
Patients underwent radiostereometric analysis (RSA), and were assessed according to the Merle d’ Aubigne (MdA) score for joint mobility, pain, and ability to walk. VAS pain, and satisfaction were noted in each patient. Micromovements of the stem were measured as rotations around the translations along 3 orthogonal axes.
Methods:
RCT
Time:
Patients were evaluated at 3, 6, 12, 24, and 60 months.
What were the important findings?
  • Motion between the 2 types of stems were comparable (all p>0.05): The median subsidence was -0.03mm for the ABG-I stem compared to -0.13mm for the Unique stem (p=0.15). Mean retroversion was 0.15 degrees compared to -0.08 degrees in the ABG-I and Unique stems respectively (p=0.41).
  • Time was noted as a factor that was significantly related to: translation along the y (p=0.02) and z (p<0.01) axes and rotation around the x (p=0.03) and z (p=0.01) axes.
  • A single Unique stem subsided 5.3mm within the first year and then stabilized. Further analysis revealed no loosening.
  • Mean preoperative Merle d’Aubigne score was 11 in the ABG-I group compared to 10 in the Unique groups. At final follow-up of 5 years, mean scores in both groups was 17.
  • Preoperative pain decreased from 6.5 to 1.1 in the ABG-I group and from 6.5 to 1.0 in the Unique group. Satisfaction was 1.1 and 0.7 respectively at 5 years.
  • No hips were revised over the 5 years; there were, however, 5 complications: ABG –I group had 2 instances of DVT and 2 early dislocations. The Unique group had 1 common peroneal nerve dysfunction.
What should I remember most?

Radiostereometric analysis (RSA) between the use of the Unique customized stem ((Scandinavian Customized Prosthesis (SCP)), and the conventional ABG-I stem revealed no improvement in long-term mechanical stability associated with the Unique stem.

How will this affect the care of my patients?

The evidence presented in this study indicated no additional benefits associated with the use of the Unique customized stem ((Scandinavian Customized Prosthesis (SCP)). It is important to note that none of the included patients presented with abnormal geometry of the upper femur for which the custom stems were developed.

DISCLAIMER

This content found on this page is for informational purposes only and is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. If you require medical treatment, always seek the advice of your physician or go to your nearest emergency department. The opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints expressed by the individuals on the content found on this page do not reflect the opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints of OrthoEvidence.

0 of 4 monthly FREE articles unlocked
You've reached your limit of 4 free articles views this month

Access to OrthoEvidence for as little as $1.99 per week.

Stay connected with latest evidence. Cancel at any time.
  • Critical appraisals of the latest, high-impact randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews in orthopaedics
  • Access to OrthoEvidence podcast content, including collaborations with the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, interviews with internationally recognized surgeons, and roundtable discussions on orthopaedic news and topics
  • Subscription to The Pulse, a twice-weekly evidence-based newsletter designed to help you make better clinical decisions
Upgrade
Welcome Back!
Forgot Password?
Start your FREE trial today!

Your account will be affiliated with
and includes free access to OrthoEvidence


OR
Forgot Password?

OR
Please check your email

If an account exists with the provided email address, a password reset email will be sent to you. If you don't see an email, please check your spam or junk folder.

For further assistance, contact our support team.

Please login to enable this feature

To access this feature, you must be logged into an active OrthoEvidence account. Please log in or create a FREE trial account.

Translate ACE Report

OrthoEvidence utilizes a third-party translation service to make content accessible in multiple languages. Please note that while every effort is made to ensure accuracy, translations may not always be perfect.

How to cite this ACE Report

OrthoEvidence. Radiostereometric analysis: no additional benefit of Unique femoral stem compared to AGB-I. OE Journal. 2014;2(13):9. Available from: https://myorthoevidence.com/AceReport/Show/

Copy Citation
Please login to enable this feature

To access this feature, you must be logged into an active OrthoEvidence account. Please log in or create a FREE trial account.

Premium Member Feature

To access this feature, you must be logged into a premium OrthoEvidence account.

Share this ACE Report