Rafał Tkacz, Dariusz Larysz, Rafał Przybylski, Marta Tkacz, Krzysztof Safranow, Maciej Tarnowski
(1) Background: In this study, two types of implants were compared-a conventional hip stem and a femoral neck prosthesis. (2) Methods: The femoral neck prosthesis study group included 21 patients, while the conventional hip stem control group was 40 patients. The first examination was the pre-op check, while the next ones were performed 6 weeks, 1 year, and 3 years after surgery. The Harris Hip Score (HHS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Oxford Hip Score (OHS), University of California at Los Angeles Activity Score (UCLA), and Visual Analog Scale EQ (VAS EQ) forms were completed at each clinical study visit. (3) Results: The HHS in the femoral neck prosthesis group and the conventional hip stem group 6 weeks after surgery was 68.8 ± 16.47 and 67.6 ± 8.92, respectively, and 1 year after surgery, this was 93 ± 5.58 vs. 90.6 ± 5.17, respectively. The OHS of the femoral neck prosthesis group was 34.8 points after 6 weeks, 45.5 points after 1 year, and 43.9 points after 3 years. The respective values in the conventional hip stem group were 35.5, 41.55, and 42.13 points. The WOMAC values for the femoral neck prosthesis group were 70.6, 92.7, and 86 points, respectively, while for the conventional hip stem group, they were 74, 88.1, and 86.1 points. The UCLA scores recorded in the conventional hip stem group ranged from 3.15 to 5.05 points, but a higher mean value of 5.33 points was obtained in the femoral neck prosthesis group. VAS EQ was equal to 84 points three years after the operation. (4) Conclusions: The study showed no significant differences in the functional scores of both groups, and the new type of cervical femoral stem could be the first choice in younger patients.
