Evidence Hub

Evaluating the risk factors for Lubinus SP II femoral stem fractures: A case series of 5 primary total hip arthroplasty patients with a mean follow-up of 7.5 years

Alexis Panzures, Saim Faisel, Akkhash Sivakumar, S. M. H. Kazmi, G. Turnbull, A. Ballantyne, M. A. Akhtar

SAGE Open Medical Case Reports, 2025

117 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

The reported rate of femoral stem fracture after total hip arthroplasty (THA) varies between less than 0.1 and 3.4%. The study aimed to evaluate the incidence of Lubinus SP II femoral stem fracture in our population and associated risk factors, and to examine clinical outcomes following revision THA for SP II stem fracture. 4244 primary THAs incorporating the anatomic femoral stem were identified within our institution from a prospectively compiled arthroplasty patient database. 5 patients presented with a broken Lubinus SP II anatomical hip stem. Immediately postoperatively, the operating consultant submitted intraoperative data detailing surgical approach, head size, and components used. Patients were reviewed 6 weeks postoperatively in an orthopedic clinic, then followed up at a dedicated orthopedic audit clinic at 6 months, 1, 3, and 5 years postoperatively, and data were collected prospectively. Postoperative complications were recorded at each follow-up visit. The incidence of stem fracture was 0.1% (5/4240) at a mean follow-up of 7.5 years. 3 were male, and 2 were female. The mean age was 63.8 years (range, 53–72, SD = 7.4). The mean weight was 109 kg (range, 88–128; SD = 14.2). The mean BMI was 36.5 kg m−1 (range, 32.5–41.0, SD = 3.08). The mean time from primary THA to fracture was 6.4 years. The mean size of the cement restrictor (indirectly suggesting the femoral canal diameter) was 13.6 mm (range, 12–15, SD = 1.1). The implant neck angle used was 117 in 4…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case report, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 117 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free