Search

Background: Hydroxyapatite (HA) coated femoral stems were introduced to enhance the biological fixation at the implant-bone interface, aiming to increase the longevity and survival of the prostheses. We aimed to assess the long-term outcomes of an HA ceramic (HAC) coated stem in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA), assess the stem survival, and clinically evaluate the patients using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and radiological evaluation of stem osseointegration. Patients and methods: This was a prospective evaluation of a retrospective cohort of 385 patients (442 hips) who underwent primary THA between June 2008 and December 2018. The mean age was 63.83 years (range, 30–82 years). During the follow-up duration, 23 patients died, and 36 patients (38 hips) were lost to follow-up. Prospective data collected for 326 patients (381 hips) was used to evaluate stem survival with the Kaplan–Meier method using aseptic loosening or any revision as the endpoint. Clinical evaluation was done using the EuroQol five-dimension (EQ-5D) scoring system and PROMs using the Oxford Hip Score (OHS) and Merle D’Aubigne Postel (MDP) score. Radiological assessments were performed using the Engh radiological criteria for stem osteointegration. Results: The mean follow-up duration was 9.39 years (range, 4–14.5 years). The survival of the HAC-coated femoral stem was 100% (95% confidence interval [CI], 96.7–100%) at 14 years with aseptic loosening as the endpoint, and 98.9% (CI, 96.7–100%) at 14 years with stem revision for any reason as the endpoint. The mean OHS was 44.5 (range, 30–48), and the mean MDP score was 15.87 (range, 10–18). Radiological evaluations showed full osseointegration of all stems. Conclusion: This HAC-coated femoral stem has shown excellent survivorship, functional outcomes, and full osseointegration at the final follow-up.

Introduction: Non-autoimmune sacroiliac joint pain contributes to nearly a quarter of low back pain patients. Non-surgical management fails to satisfy patients. A new minimally invasive technique for sacroiliac stabilization has been introduced, defying the traditional rules of fusion. The results outside explanatory trials and in day-to-day practice have not been reported. Materials and methods: This case series includes 20 patients diagnosed with chronic sacroiliac pain resistant to conservative management for at least 6 months. The diagnosis was confirmed with a positive sacroiliac injection. Patients underwent stabilization using the iFuse® implant. Patients were followed up for a minimum of one year. The primary outcome was the functional outcomes, assessed using VAS, ODI, and SF36. Secondary procedure rates, complication rates, and radiological assessments of fusion were collected as secondary outcomes. Results: At one year, the mean VAS score improved from 81.25 ± 10.7 SD preoperatively to 52.5 ± 26.8, p-value 0.0013. The mean ODI improved from 54.8 ± 11.21 SD preoperatively to 41.315 ± 15.34, P value = 0.0079. The mean PCS and MCS of SF36 improved by 17 and 20 points, respectively. Only 55% of patients achieved the MCID for the VAS score. 35% of the cohort had secondary procedures. Discussion: Minimally invasive sacroiliac fusion resulted in an improvement in mean functional scores with a wide dispersion. Patients not achieving MCID are patients with either a malpositioned implant, an associated lumbar pathology, or an inaccurate diagnosis. Our results are underwhelming compared to similar work but are still better than conservative cohorts in comparative studies. Conclusion: Minimally invasive sacroiliac fusion can be used successfully in select patients. Attention to diagnosis and surgical technique can improve the reproducibility of results.