Table 6 |
|||||
| Subgroup analysis | |||||
| Femoral defects by Paprosky | p-values | ||||
| I | IIA | IIB | IIC | III | |
| Bony union | 1 | 0.11 | 0.17 | 0.07 | <0.05 |
| Sum of radiolucencies | 1 | 0.11 | 0.17 | 0.07 | <0.05 |
| Sum of stem migration | 0.07 | 0.10 | 0.13 | <0.05 | 0.07 |
| “Stress-Shielding” | 0.38 | 0.70 | 0.94 | <0.05 | <0.05 |
| HHS difference [pre- vs. post-OP] | 0.34 | 0.93 | 0.32 | <0.05 | <0.05 |
| Stem - Diameter | 13 / 14 mm | 15 / 16 mm | 17 / 18 mm | 19 / 20 mm | > 21 mm |
| Bony union | 0.16 | 0.12 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.08 |
| Sum of radiolucencies | 0.16 | 0.12 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.08 |
| Sum of stem migration | 0.16 | 0.47 | 0.11 | 0.08 | 0.08 |
| “Stress-Shielding” | 0.39 | 0.30 | <0.05 | <0.05 | 0.08 |
| HHS differece [pre- vs. post-OP] | 0.34 | 0.93 | <0.05 | <0.05 | <0.05 |
Detailed evaluation of clinical and radiographic results with consideration given to the femoral defect situation and implant diameter: levels of significance in difference (p-values) between control and study group.
Wimmer et al. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2013 14:19 doi:10.1186/1471-2474-14-19
