header advert
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

THE THRUST PLATE FEMORAL COMPONENT



Abstract

Aim: The purpose of this paper is to review clinically and radiographically the results of the first 100 total hip arthroplasties using the Thrust Plate femoral component both to give an early insight into its performance to date and whether this justifies the continued use of the implant.

Method: A prospective follow-up study was embarked upon in June 1998 using the Thrust Plate prosthesis in patients deemed suitable for the use of a cementless femoral component and who agreed to partake in the study using an ‘experimental implant’. Between June 1998 and March 2000, 100 hundred patients were entered into the study. There were 73 male and 27 female patients with an age range of 20 to 64 years. All patients have been followed by the author and were reviewed clinically and radiographically at regular intervals. No patients have been lost to follow-up.

Results: The average Harris Hip Score improved from 52 pre-op to 94 at last follow-up. There were no wound complications, infections, dislocations or clinically proven thrombo-embolic complications at the last follow-up appointment. There have been four revisions, all as a result of failure of fixation of the Thrust Plate. There is one patient with a radiographically loose implant, but clinically is still functioning well with a hip score of 90.

Conclusions: With a failure rate of 5% the author has some concerns about the ongoing use of the implant and is now applying more stringent selection criteria. The learning curve is significant. However, when technical considerations are taken into account, this failure rate can be explained. The overall incorporation of the implant when assessed radiologically in those cases that have not been revised has been satisfactory and longer-term follow-up is required to judge the implant’s performance over time.

The abstracts were prepared by Professor Alan Thurston. Correspondence should be addressed to him at the New Zealand Orthopaedic Association, PO Box 7451, Wellington, New Zealand.