↓ Skip to main content

Can a Conical Implant Successfully Address Complex Anatomy in Primary THA? Radiographs and Hip Scores at Early Followup

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 Mendeley
Title
Can a Conical Implant Successfully Address Complex Anatomy in Primary THA? Radiographs and Hip Scores at Early Followup
Published in
Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, August 2015
DOI 10.1007/s11999-015-4480-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Quoqiang Zhang, Stuart B. Goodman, William J. Maloney, James I. Huddleston

Abstract

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) in patients with small or abnormal proximal femoral anatomy is challenging as a result of complex anatomic deformities in the hip. It is unclear which stem is the most appropriate for these patients. One possible implant design that may help meet this need is the modified Wagner Cone prosthesis, whose design consists of monoblock cone with splines; however, to our knowledge, no clinical results have been published using this implant. We evaluated the hip scores and radiographic results (including signs of osseointegration and subsidence) of complex primary THA using the modified Wagner Cone cementless femoral component in patients with small or abnormal proximal femoral anatomic proportions. Between 2006 and 2011, we performed 59 THAs on patients whose femoral geometry precluded the use of standard-sized implants. Of these, 49 (83%) received the modified Wagner Cone prosthesis. During this time, our indications for use of the Wagner Cone implant in such patients included: femoral neck retroversion, excessive anteversion of the femoral neck, or small proximal femora not suitable for standard implants. Of those, 40 patients with 49 THAs were available for radiographic and clinical followup at a minimum of 3 years, and no patients were lost to followup. The diagnosis included developmental dysplasia of hip (22 patients, 28 hips), secondary trauma or posttuberculosis osteoarthritis (nine patients, 10 hips), and hip disease secondary to other disorders (eight patients, nine hips) and osteonecrosis (one patients, two hips). Two versions of the stem with 135° (28 hips) or 125° (21 hips) neck angle versions were used to reestablish normal hip biomechanics. Version angle was chosen based on preoperative templating. Cementless cups with screws were used for the acetabulum. Mean followup was 4 years (range, 3-7 years). Study endpoints were the Harris hip score and radiographic evaluations by a surgeon not involved in the clinical care of the patients (QZ); radiographic analysis included evaluating for the presence or absence of signs of osseointegration (including Engh's criteria) and subsidence. The Harris hip score improved from a mean of 41 ± 9 preoperatively to a mean of 85 ± 10 at last followup (p < 0.01). The mean vertical subsidence was 1.5 ± 1.1 mm. Radiographic evaluation demonstrated stability (no further subsidence) of all implants at last followup. Endosteal spot welds were found in 32 hips (65%). No progressive radiolucencies were observed. One patient (one hip) underwent revision surgery as a result of late infection; no other revisions were performed. The modified Wagner Cone femoral stem has provided improvements in hip scores and promising short-term radiographic results at short-term followup in complex cementless THA associated with abnormal or small femoral anatomical proportions in which standard implants are inappropriate. Longer followup will be needed to see if these results endure. Randomized trials are needed to determine the optimal stem design for these patients. Level IV, therapeutic study.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Norway 1 1%
Unknown 73 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 14%
Student > Bachelor 10 14%
Other 6 8%
Student > Postgraduate 4 5%
Other 11 15%
Unknown 18 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Sports and Recreations 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Unspecified 2 3%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 21 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 October 2015.
All research outputs
#17,286,379
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#5,586
of 7,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#164,836
of 275,477 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#89
of 128 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,298 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 275,477 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 128 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.