"article entitled ¿comparison of tri-lock bone preservation stem and the conventional standard corail stem in primary total hip arthroplasty"" written by jiang guo, jie tan, lei peng, qian song, hao-ran kong, peng wang, and hui-yong shen published by orthopaedic surgery accepted on january 16, 2021 was reviewed.The article's purpose was to compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes in between the tri-lock bone preservation stem (84 patients with 104 hips) and the conventional standard corail stem (84 patients with 115 hips) in primary total hip arthroplasties that were performed between march 2012 to may 2014.The results determined the tri-lock has similar clinical performances compared to the corail stem with some advantages in lower incidence of thigh pain, stress shielding and intra-operative fracture.Complications: trilock stem 1 intraoperative femur fracture treated with cerclage wire.1 dislocation treated with revision.2 patients with postoperative limp- treatment unspecified.3 reports of postoperative pneumonia- treatment unspecified.Corail stem: 4 patient reported postoperative pain- treatment unspecified.1 report of sciatic nerve numbness- treatment unspecified.8 intraoperative femur fractures- unspecified number treated with cerclage wires.3 reports of superficial infection- treatment unspecified.2 reports of postoperative dvt- treatment unspecified.1 postoperative periprosthetic fracture treated with revision.1 periprosthetic joint infection treated with revision.Radiographic results: the authors note there were no instances of subsidence in either group, however: trilock: 8 stems in varus and 2 in valgus, 84 stems with varying degrees of stress shielding, and 4 with ectopic ossification.Corail: 10 stems in varus and 3 in valgus, 84 stems with varying degrees of stress shielding, and 3 with ectopic ossification.".
|
Product complaint # (b)(4).Investigation summary: no device associated with this report was received for examination.A worldwide lot specific complaint database search, or device history record (dhr) review, was not possible because the required lot number was not provided.The information received will be retained for potential series investigations if triggered by trend analysis, post market surveillance, or other events within the quality system.Device history lot: the product investigation found no evidence suspecting an error in the manufacturing or material that would be a contributing factor in the reported allegation(s).Where the lot code was provided, a manufacturing records evaluation (mre) was not performed.
|