Advertisement

International Orthopaedics

, Volume 40, Issue 5, pp 907–912 | Cite as

Assessment of fixation in cementless femoral revision of total hip arthroplasty: comparison of the Engh score versus radiolucent line measurement

  • Olivier Roche
  • Julien GirardEmail author
  • François Canovas
  • Henri Migaud
  • François Bonnomet
  • Mathias Goldschild
  • Pierre Le Béguec
Review Article

Abstract

Purpose

To assess osseointegration and stability of a primary cementless femoral stem, many scoring systems have been developed, but none of them have taken into account only the radiolucent line. The purposes of this study were (1) to compare the results between the Engh score to assess osseointegration and stability of the cementless stem with results of a score called the O-SS score (osseointegration-secondary stability), which takes into account the radiolucent line, (2) to verify the relationship between these two scores and the functional results, and (3) to verify if there is a relationship between the O-SS score and secondary subsidence or a pedestal.

Methods

A clinical and radiological evaluation was performed in a group of 100 hip prosthesis revisions comparing the results obtained by Engh score and O-SS score for which reproducibility was analysed.

Results

Inter-observer reproducibility was estimated to be average at 0.5 and intra-observer reproducibility good at 0.7. The correlation with the Engh score was good at r = 0.59 (p < 0.0001). For the 80 cases assessed O-SS score as very good/good, Harris hip score was at 83.7 versus 78.25 for the 20 cases assessed as average/poor (p = 0.07). For the 73 cases with assessed Engh score as very good/good, this score was at 82.8 versus 82.14 for the 27 cases assessed as average/poor. No correlation between the O-SS score and secondary subsidence (p = 0.2) or pedestal (p = 0.2) was noticed.

Conclusion

The evaluation of the clear radiolucent line alone, extent and location, is a sufficient condition to assess osseointegration and secondary stability of a cementless femoral stem.

Keywords

Revision hip prosthesis Cementless stem Radiolucent line Osseointegration Secondary stability Functional results 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Our thanks are extended to Anne Ingels for the statistical studies.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

OR certifies that he has or may receive payments or benefits from a commercial entity (Zimmer Educational). FC certifies that he has or may receive payments or benefits from a commercial entity (Zimmer Educational). JG certifies that he has or may receive payments or benefits from a commercial entity (Zimmer Educational). HM certifies that he has or may receive payments or benefits from a commercial entity (Zimmer Educational). FB certifies that he has or may receive payments or benefits from a commercial entity (Amplitude) that may not be perceived as a potential conflict of interest. PLB certifies that he has or may receive payments or benefits from a commercial entity (Zimmer GmbH) that may be perceived as a potential conflict of interest. MG has no potential conflict of interest.

Ethical review committee

Each author certifies that his institution has approved the reporting of these cases and that all investigations were conducted in conformity with ethical principles of research.

Location of the work

This study was conducted at Polyclinique Sévigné

References

  1. 1.
    Engh CA, Massin P, Suthers KE (1990) Roentgenographic assessment of the biologic fixation of porous surfaced femoral component. Clin Orthop Relat Res 257:107–128PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Epinette JA (1999) Radiographic assessment of cementless hip prostheses. The “ARA” scoring system. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 9:91–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Paprosky WG, Greidanus NV, Antoniou J (1999) Minimum 10-year-results of extensively porous-coated stems in revision hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 369:230–242CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Weeden SH, Paprosky WG (2002) Minimal 11-year follow-up of extensively porous-coated stems in femoral revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 17(Suppl 1):134–137CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Morscher E (1991) Experience with the press-fit cup and press-fit gliding stem. In: Kusswetter W (ed) Noncemented total hip replacement. Proceedings of International Symposium 1990. Thieme, Tübingen, pp 221–231Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Le Béguec P, Canovas F, Roche O, Goldschild M, Batard J (2015) Uncemented femoral stems for revision surgery. Springer International Publishing, SwitzerlandCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Harris WH (1969) Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fracture. Treatment by mold arthroplasty An end result study using new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 51:737–754PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gruen TA, McNeice GM, Amstutz HC (1979) “Modes of failure” of cemented stem-type femoral components. A radiographic analysis of loosening. Clin Orthop Relat Res 141:17–27PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    de Menezes DF, Le Béguec P, Sieber HP, Goldschild M (2012) Stem and osteotomy length are critical for success of the transfemoral approach and cementless stem revision. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470:883–888CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shrout PE, Fleiss JL (1979) Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 86:420–428CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Abadie P, Lebel B, Pineau V, Burdin G, Vielpeau C (2010) Cemented total hip stem design influence on adaptative cortical tickness and femoral morphology. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 96:104–110CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Massin P, Chappard D (2005) Biology of implant bone interface in total hip arthroplasty. In: Duparc J editor. Cahiers d’enseignement de la SOFCOT. Paris: Elsevier-Masson 90:315–331Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Girard J, Roche O, Wavreille G, Canovas F, Le Béguec P (2011) Stem subsidence after total hip revision: 183 cases at 5.9 years follow-up. Orthop Trauma Surg Res 97:121–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Weber M, Hempfing A, Orler R, Ganz R (2002) Femoral revision using the Wagner stem: results at 2–9 years. Int Orthop 26:36–39CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wirtz DC, Heller KD, Holzwarth U, Sieber C, Pitto RP, Zeiler G, Blencke BA, Forst R (2000) A modular femoral implant for uncemented stem revision in THR. Int Orthop 24:134–138CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© SICOT aisbl 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Olivier Roche
    • 1
  • Julien Girard
    • 2
    Email author
  • François Canovas
    • 3
  • Henri Migaud
    • 2
  • François Bonnomet
    • 4
  • Mathias Goldschild
    • 5
  • Pierre Le Béguec
    • 6
  1. 1.Centre Chirurgical Emile GalléNancyFrance
  2. 2.Hôpital Roger SalengroCHU LilleLille CedexFrance
  3. 3.Hôpital LapeyronieCHU MontpellierMontpellier CedexFrance
  4. 4.Hôpital de HautepierreCHU StrasbourgStrasbourg CedexFrance
  5. 5.Polyclinique SévignéCesson-SévignéFrance
  6. 6.11 Galeries du théâtreRennesFrance

Personalised recommendations