RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Comparison Canal Filling Ratio And Femoral Bone Density Change Between Wedge Taper And Anatomical Stem Design
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2022.11.08.22282094
DO 10.1101/2022.11.08.22282094
A1 ploynumpon, Patcharavit
A1 Chompoosang, Thakrit
YR 2022
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/11/17/2022.11.08.22282094.abstract
AB Purpose comparative the outcome of proximal femoral bone density change in follow-up x-ray film and proximal filling ratio of stem between anatomical and double taper wedge cementless stem designMethods post-operative follow film of up to 1 year of patients who had undergone Total hip arthroplasty between 2552-2563, which is match inclusion criteria, was obtained from the radiology department. The measurement of Canal filling ratio (Lesser trochanter, 2 cm above LT and 7 cm below LT) and Femoral bone density change using optimal densitometry method to compare between Anatomical and double wedge taper stem type.Result 92 patients,76% female, and 24% male, were match the inclusion criteria for this study. The mean age was 53.86±13.00 years old. The canal filling ratio in the double wedge taper group (Accolade II) was significantly higher than the anatomical stem group (ABGII) (p<0.001, p<0.001, p=0.013) in all levels of measurement. There were no significant differences between both types of the stem in femoral bone density change in zone 1,4. However. There were significant differences in femoral bone change, in which bone loss was higher in the anatomical stem group, in zone 7 (−25 VS −17, P= 0.010)Conclusion Double taper wedge stem design had a significantly higher canal filling ratio than the Anatomical stem at all levels and less femoral bone density loss in follow-up post-operative film at Zone 7. However, in zone 1,4, There was no significant difference in femoral bone density loss.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThe funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Ethics Committee of Rajavithi hospital approved the research protocol in this studyI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files