{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03837953091684435, 'fraction_numerical': 0.024875621890547265, 'mean_word_length': 4.991489361702127, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Long-term comparison of porous and hydroxyapatite sleeves in femoral revision using the S-ROM modular stem

We prospectively evaluated the results of a single-surgeon series of 28 femoral revision arthroplasties using the S-ROM modular stem with either a porous-coated sleeve (15 hips) or a hydroxyapatite-coated sleeve (13 hips) after a mean of 10 years (range, 8–14 years). Three femoral stems underwent repeat femoral revision for aseptic loosening in association with Paprosky type III bone defects after a mean of 9 years in vivo (range, 8–10 years). One on these 3 had a porous-coated sleeve and the other 2 had a hydroxyapatite-coated sleeve. With repeat revision for any reason as the end point, femoral component survival was 83.8% at 10 years for the entire series, and 93.3% for the porous-coated sleeve group and 76.2% for the hydroxyapatite-coated sleeve group, respectively (log-rank test, P=0.588). No significant difference was detected between the 2 groups regarding postoperative Harris hip scores, bone ingrowth, stress-shielding, osteolysis, or complication rates. At a mean of 10 years postoperatively, hydroxyapatite-coated sleeves offered no clinical benefit over porous-coated sleeves for revision hip replacement using the S-ROM modular stem. Our findings also indicate that hydroxyapatite-coated sleeves did not reduce late mechanical stem failures in cases with a deficient femur.