MINIMA Short Stem Versus Standard Profemur (TL) Stem in Primary Total Hip Replacement: A Comparative Study.

Background: The objective of our study was to compare a novel squared section, tapered design - with four conicity - short stem, the MINIMA® short stem with the cementless Profemur® TL standard femoral stem in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) in terms of functional outcomes, radiologic evaluation and other peri-operative and post-operative data.
Material and Methods: This is a comparative study including 46 patients undergoing primary THA. In 23 patients, the MINIMA® short stem was used. These patients were matched with another 23 patients in whom a cementless Profemur® TL standard femoral stem was used. The levels of the pain were evaluated according to the Visual Analog Scale/Numerical Rating Scale (VAS/NRS). The functional and clinical evaluation of the patients was performed with Harris Hip Score (HHS), Charnley's Hip score, EuroQol (EQ-5D)-(EQ-100), Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), and neuropathic pain questionnaire (DN-4). The rest of the comparison data included demographic data, the American Society of Anesthesiologists score (ASA), Charlson Index score, the pre-operative diagnosis, radiographic evaluation, the days of hospitalization, the operating time, incision length, blood loss, and blood transfusion requirements and complication rates.
Results: The two cohorts had comparable results regarding all patients' peri-operative data. The radiographic assessment revealed considerable higher levels of femoral offset and femoral subsidence for the MINIMA group, but within acceptable limits for both cohorts. The majority of the functional and other scores did not give strong prominence to one specific femoral stem.
Conclusion: Our comparative study underlined the efficacy of the MINIMA® short stem, due to the fact that it revealed comparable and, in some cases, relatively better short-term outcomes compared with the TL standard femoral stem. Yet, more well-designed long-term research is required in order to further establish its effectiveness.
Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
(Copyright © 2022, Tottas et al.)