Comparison of MİD-TERM clinical and radiological results of total hip arthroplasty with short femoral stem and hip arthroplasty with conventional femoral stem

Purpose: This study aims to evaluate and compare the clinical and radiological evaluations of short femoral stems and classical femoral stems used in daily orthopedic practice. Materials and Methods: We included 252 hip arthroplasty patients in our study, in which we performed total hip arthroplasty using short femoral stem and classical femoral stem and provided regular controls between 2014-2017 at Ankara Atatürk Training and Research Hospital Orthopedics and Traumatology Clinic. 185 hip arthroplasties participated in the study. We divided the patient into 2 groups. Group1 consisted of those who used short femoral stems and Group2 consisted of those who used classical femoral stems. To evaluate the clinical results of the patients, Harris Hip Score, SF-36 Quality of Life Scale and Anterior thigh pain were evaluated. Pre-operative graphy for radiological evaluation, early post-operative radiographs and pelvic ap radiographs at the last follow-up were used. As radiological parameters, stem varus/valgus angulation, hip off-set change, acetabular anteversion/inclination, femoral migration, acetabular migration, periarticular ossification and both acetabulum and osteoin femoral component values were used. download parameters were checked. Results: The mean follow-up period for Group1 was 5.5 years and for Group2 was 5.2 years. There was no significant difference between the Harris Hip Score and SF-36 Quality of Life Scale scores between the two groups. Thigh pain was statistically significantly higher in Group2. found(p=0.0001). In radiological parameters, varus angulation and annual angular change were found to be higher for Group1 than Group2. Femoral off-set increase was found to be higher for Group1 than Group2. Periarticular ossification was found in Group2 compared to Group1. Femoral osteointegration was found to be more intense in the proximal in Group1 and in the distal in Group2. Conclusion: When we look at the clinical and radiological comparisons of short femoral stems and classical stems in the medium term, they do not clearly show superiority to each other. When we consider according to the cost/benefit ratio, short femoral stems are suitable for patients (with low collo-diaphyseal angle, coxa varia, young arthroplasty patient, etc.). However, in order to reach a clear conclusion, comparative studies with long-term results are needed.