Advertisement

International Orthopaedics

, Volume 37, Issue 6, pp 995–999 | Cite as

Pooled outcome of total hip arthroplasty with the CementLess Spotorno (CLS) system: a comparative analysis of clinical studies and worldwide arthroplasty register data

  • Patrick Sadoghi
  • Wolfgang Janda
  • Mark Agreiter
  • Rauend Rauf
  • Andreas Leithner
  • Gerold Labek
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

Our aim was to elucidate the pooled outcome of the CementLess Spotorno (CLS) system in total hip arthroplasty (THA).

Methods

We compared the outcome of clinical inventor studies, independent clinical studies, and worldwide register data. The main endpoints for analysis were revision rates.

Results

Twenty clinical studies were evaluated and, with one exception, overall found revision rates largely in line with register data. Revision rates (revisions per 100 observed component years) range from 0.15 (inventor study) to 0.28 (independent studies) and 0.43 (register datasets).

Conclusion

Data of journal publications and register datasets using the CLS system do not differ significantly with respect to revision rates. Only the initial inventor study reports a revision rate three times lower than in pooled worldwide register datasets.

Keywords

Revision Rate Inventor Study Arthroplasty Register Register Dataset Joint Replacement Registry 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Labek G, on behalf of the QoLA Study Group. Quality of publications regarding the outcome of revision rate after arthroplasty—interim report of the QoLA Project presented at the EFORT Congress 2010 in Madrid. http://www.ear.efort.org/. Accessed 26 February 2013
  2. 2.
    Graves S (2010) The value of arthroplasty registry data. Acta Orthop 81(1):8–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Labek G, Frischhhut S, Schlichtherle R, Williams A, Thaler M (2011) Outcome of the cementless Taperloc stem: a comprehensive literature review including arthroplasty register data. Acta Orthop 82(2):143–148PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Labek G, Sekyra K, Pawelka W, Janda W, Stöckl B (2011) Outcome and reproducibility of data concerning the Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a structured literature review including arthroplasty register data. Acta Orthop 82(2):131–135PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bläsius K, Cotta H, Schneider U, Thomsen M (1993) CLS multicenter study—8-year results. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 131(6):547–552PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Spotorno L, Romagnoli S, Ivaldo N, Grappiolo G, Bibbiani E, Blaha DJ, Guen TA (1993) The CLS-system theoretical concept and results. Acta Orthop Belg 59(Suppl 1):144–148PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Robinson RP, Lovell TP, Green TM (1994) Hip arthroplasty using the cementless CLS stem. A 2–4 year experience. J Arthroplasty 9(2):177–192PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bülow JU, Scheller G, Arnold P, Synatschke M, Jani L (1996) Follow-up (6–9 years) results of the uncemented CLS Spotorno stem. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 115(3–4):190–194PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ludwig FJ, Melzer C, Backofen D (1996) Criteria for radiologic evaluation of cement-free hip endoprotheses exemplified by the Spotorno shaft. Unfallchirurg 99(1):750–757PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tauber C, Kidron A (2000) Total hip arthroplasty revision using the press-fit CLS Spotorno cementless stem. Twenty-four hips followed between 1987 and 1998. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 120(3–4):209–211PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schramm M, Keck F, Hohmann D, Pitto RP (2000) Total hip arthroplasty using an uncemented femoral component with taper design: outcome at 10-year follow-up. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 120(7–8):407–412PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Siebold R, Scheller G, Schreiner U, Jani L (2001) Long-term results with the cement-free Spotorno CLS shaft. Orthopade 30(5):317–322PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Romagnoli S (2002) Press-fit hip arthroplasty: a European alternative. J Arthroplasty 17(4 Suppl 1):108–112PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stafilas K, Kitsoulis P, Zaharis K, Xenakis T (2003) Total hip arthroplasty with uncemented CLS Spotorno Stem for dysplastic or congenitally dislocated hips in adults. A long-term follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg 85-B(SUPP III):225Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schneider U, Breusch SJ, Thomsen M, Wirtz DC, Lukoschek M (2002) Influence of implant position of a hip prosthesis on alignment exemplified by the CLS shaft. Unfallchirurg 105(1):31–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mallory TH, Lombardi AV, Leith JR, Fujita H, Hartman JF, Capps SG, Kefauver CA, Adams JB, Christian G (2002) Why a taper? J Bone Joint Surg Am 84-A(Suppl 2):81–89PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Aldinger PR, Breusch SJ, Lukoschek M, Mau H, Ewerbeck V, Thomsen M (2003) A ten- to 15-year follow-up of the cementless spotorno stem. J Bone Joint Surg Br 85(2):209–214PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Güther D, Pap G, Bamert P, Eggli S (2003) Long-term results with the cementless CLS stem in hip replacement. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 141(3):309–315PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Aldinger PR, Thomsen M, Mau H, Ewerbeck V, Breusch SJ (2003) Cementless Spotorno tapered titanium stems: excellent 10–15-year survival in 141 young patients. Acta Orthop Scand 74(3):253–258PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zerahn B, Lausten GS, Kanstrup IL (2004) Prospective comparison of differences in bone mineral density adjacent to two biomechanically different types of cementless femoral stems. Int Orthop 28(3):146–150PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    MacDonald A, Mutimer J, Ross A (2004) 10-years results of cementless total hip arthroplasty in young patients using the CLS Spotorno stem and Morscher cup. J Bone Joint Surg Br 86-B(SUPP III)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kim SY, Kyung HS, Ihn JC, Cho MR, Koo KH, Kim CY (2004) Cementless Metasul metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty in patients less than fifty years old. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86-A(11):2475–2481PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Roth A, Richartz G, Sander K, Sachse A, Fuhrmann R, Wagner A, Venbrocks RA (2005) Periprosthetic bone loss after total hip endoproshesis. Dependence on the type of prosthesis and preoperative bone configuration. Orthopade 34(4):334–344PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Parsch D, Jung AW, Thomsen M, Ewerbeck V, Aldinger PR (2008) Good survival of uncemented tapered stems for failed intertrochanteric osteotomy: a mean 16 year follow-up study in 45 patients. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 128(10):1081–1085PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Anonymous. EFORT-portal. http://www.ear.efort.org/registers.aspx. Accessed 26 February 2013.
  26. 26.
    Anonymous. Annual Report 2004–2010. AOA-National Joint Replacement Registry. http://www.dmac.adelaide.edu.au/aoanjrr/publications.jsp?section=reports2010. Accessed 26 February 2013.
  27. 27.
    Labek G, Thaler M, Janda W, Agreiter M, Stöckl B (2011) Revision rates after total joint replacements: cumulative results from worldwide joint register datasets. J Bone Joint Surg Br 93(3):293–297PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sadoghi P, Schröder C, Fottner A, Steinbrück A, Betz O, Müller PE, Jansson V, Hölzer A (2012) Application and survival curve of total hip arthroplasties: a systematic comparative analysis using worldwide hip arthroplasty registers. Int Orthop 36(11):2197–2203PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patrick Sadoghi
    • 1
  • Wolfgang Janda
    • 2
  • Mark Agreiter
    • 2
  • Rauend Rauf
    • 2
  • Andreas Leithner
    • 1
  • Gerold Labek
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryMedical University of GrazGrazAustria
  2. 2.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryInnsbruck Medical UniversityInnsbruckAustria

Personalised recommendations