Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Hip implant sinking after total hip replacement in 145 dogs
By Low, Daniel et al.·Published in Veterinary surgery : VS·2026·frank. Pet Surgeons, United Kingdom·View original on PubMed →
PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →
Original publication title: Subsidence of the BFX standard stem after canine total hip replacement: A case series of 177 consecutive procedures.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A group of 145 dogs underwent total hip replacement surgery using a specific type of implant called the BFX standard stem. After the surgery, some dogs experienced a problem known as subsidence, where the implant moved down into the bone. While 13.6% of the surgeries had complications, most cases of subsidence were not linked to serious issues, and many dogs did well despite the implant shifting. The findings suggest that while some movement of the implant can occur, it may not always be a cause for concern.
People also search for: dog hip replacement complications · BFX stem subsidence in dogs · total hip replacement recovery for dogs
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe postoperative subsidence observed after total hip replacement (THR) with the BFX standard stem. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case series. SAMPLE POPULATION: A total of 177 THR procedures in 145 dogs. METHODS: Clinical and radiographic follow-up data were collected between 12 weeks and six months postoperatively. A proportion correction was used to calculate subsidence between immediate postoperative and follow-up radiographs. Canal flare index, coronal canal fill, sagittal canal fill, coronal stem orientation and sagittal stem orientation were measured. RESULTS: There were 24/177 (13.6%) intra- and postoperative complications. Of these, 11/177 (6.2%) were stem complications. Eight stem complications were intraoperative femoral fissures; one fissure progressed to postoperative femoral fracture. Subsidence was associated with stem complications (p = .005) and was not associated with non-stem complications (p = .76) or prosthetic luxation (p = .07). There were seven stems with more than 5.0 mm of subsidence; of these only 1/7 had a stem complication. There were 26 stems with more than 3.0 mm of subsidence; of these only 3/26 had a stem complication. There was no association between any femoral or stem measurements and subsidence. CONCLUSION: Subsidence of the BFX standard stem was associated with stem complications, which were mostly intraoperative femoral fissures. Thresholds of 3.0 and 5.0 mm were poorly predictive of complications, and substantial subsidence was often clinically inconsequential. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Cutoffs for excessive subsidence may have limited clinical utility. The significance of postoperative subsidence should be interpreted in the context of other clinical findings.
Find similar cases for your pet
PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.
Search related cases →Original publication on PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41660743/