Randomized trial compares bone mineral density and stem fixation in hip implants, indicating subtle differences.
Background and purpose: The new Tri-Lock bone -preserving stem with a collarless proximal-coated tapered-wedge design was compared with a classic well-proven collarless proximal-coated long and round-tapered design. Our primary aim was to compare femoral stem fixation (subsidence) of the Tri-Lock stem with the classic Summit stem, and secondarily to compare the change in periprosthetic bone mineral density (BMD) and PROMS between stem groups.Methods: In a patient-blinded randomized controlled trial, 52 patients at mean age 60 (SD 6) received cementless Tri-Lock (n = 26) or Summit (n = 26) femoral stems with a cementless Pinnacle cup, a cross-linked polyethylene liner, and a CoCr head. Patients were followed for 5 years with radiostereometric analysis (RSA), dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). We measured mean (CI) values of migration and periprosthetic bone mineral density and calculated between group differences.Results: At 2-year follow-up, the mean difference in subsidence was 0.14 mm (95% confidence interval [CI] –0.27 to 0.56) and below the chosen minimal clinically important difference of 0.6 mm. At 5-year follow-up, for the Tri-Lock and Summit stems, the mean subsidence was 0.38 (CI 0.04–0.72) and 0.24 (CI 0.09–0.57), and the mean retroversion was 1.68° (CI 0.80–2.55) and 1.53° (CI 0.68–2.37), respectively. There was initial periprosthetic BMD loss for both stems. At 5-year follow-up, the mean metaphyseal bone loss was minimal for the Tri-Lock stem (zone 1: –2.8% vs –11.5%) while the Summit stem preserved the medial diaphyseal bone better (zone 6: –7.1% vs –13.6%). At the medial stem tip, BMD was increased with the Summit stem (zone 5: +3.4% vs –1.5%). At 5-year follow-up, median EQ5D was 1 in both groups and median Oxford Hip Score was 47 (Tri-Lock) and 45 (Summit) with no statistical significant differences between groups.Conclusion: The Tri-Lock and the Summit stems displayed similar migration until mid-term follow-up. At 3 months both stems had lost metaphyseal periprosthetic bone mineral density (BMD). During the following years, the new design regained more metaphyseal BMD. Contrarily, the long and round-tapered stem design regained or even increased diaphyseal BMD. PROM scores improved beyond the reference level for both groups.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jørgensen et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: