Comparison of distal and proximal centralising devices in hip arthroplasty

Creative Commons License

Aydin N., BEZER M., AKGÜLLE A. H., Saygi B., KOCAOĞLU B., Guven O.

INTERNATIONAL ORTHOPAEDICS, cilt.33, sa.4, ss.945-948, 2009 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier identifier identifier

  • Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
  • Cilt numarası: 33 Sayı: 4
  • Basım Tarihi: 2009
  • Doi Numarası: 10.1007/s00264-008-0610-3
  • Dergi Adı: INTERNATIONAL ORTHOPAEDICS
  • Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus
  • Sayfa Sayıları: ss.945-948
  • Acıbadem Mehmet Ali Aydınlar Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet

Özet

Centralising devices were introduced to ensure that the prosthesis is implanted in a neutral position and that a cement mantle of optimal thickness is achieved proximally and distally. A distal centralising device (DCD) is compared with a proximal midshaft centralising device (PCD) to test which one provides a more neutral prosthetic alignment. Thirty consecutive patients undergoing hemiarthroplasties for femoral neck fractures were studied prospectively. Patients were blindly randomised to receive either a femoral component with proximal midshaft centraliser or distal centraliser. Both components were implanted following the manufacturer's protocol. Postoperative true anteroposterior and lateral radiographs were made to assess the stem position. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in zones 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 in both anteroposterior and lateral radiographic measurements. DCP and PCD both have similar centralisation and cement mantle. Future studies should be done to evaluate their long-term effect.