Skip to main content
Published Online:https://doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20160222-04Cited by:23

Abstract

There are several reported disadvantages with conventional-length femoral stems in cementless total hip arthroplasty (THA). Therefore, various efforts have been made to develop a specific femoral short stem to improve physiologic bone remodeling at the femoral aspect of a cementless THA. However, there are potential disadvantages with specific femoral short stems, such as malalignment, inadvertent subsidence, and potential proximal femoral fracture. Therefore, the authors quantitatively compared radiographic and clinical outcomes as well as component-specific complications between 2 groups of patients following primary cementless THA. A matched comparison was made between specific femoral short stems (n=50) and conventional-length femoral stems (n=50) in cementless THA procedures performed between January 2008 and January 2012. Patients were matched for age, sex, body mass index, height, surgical approach, and surgeon. No significant differences were found between the 2 groups in mean postoperative radiographic outcomes, functional outcomes, or complications. Both groups showed satisfactory performance at 5-year follow-up. Specific femoral short stems resulted in a higher incidence of malalignment and subsidence and a lower incidence of thigh pain and proximal bone resorption compared with conventional-length femoral stems. Although longer follow-up is required, specific femoral short stems may have clinical and radiographic advantages with equivalent perioperative complications relative to conventional-length femoral stems. However, this technique requires proper patient selection in combination with careful preoperative planning and meticulous surgical technique. [Orthopedics. 2016; 39(2):e311–e317.]

  • 1.Bourne RB, Rorabeck CH. A critical look at cementless stems: taper designs and when to use alternatives. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998; 355:212–223.10.1097/00003086-199810000-00022

    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 2.Berend KR, Lombardi AV, Mallory TH, Dodds KL, Adams JB. Cementless double-tapered total hip arthroplasty in patients 75 years of age and older. J Arthroplasty. 2004; 19(3):288–295.10.1016/j.arth.2003.11.002

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 3.Kiyama T, Naito M, Shinoda T, Maeyama A. Hip abductor strengths after total hip arthroplasty via the lateral and posterolateral approaches. J Arthroplasty. 2010; 25(1):76–80.10.1016/j.arth.2008.11.001

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 4.Engh CA, Bobyn JD, Glassman AH. Porous-coated hip replacement: the factors governing bone ingrowth, stress shielding, and clinical results. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1987; 69(1):45–55.

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 5.Glassman AH, Bobyn JD, Tanzer M. New femoral designs: do they influence stress shielding?Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006; 453:64–74.10.1097/01.blo.0000246541.41951.20

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 6.Santori FS, Santori N. Mid-term results of a custom-made short proximal loading femoral component. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010; 92(9):1231–1237.10.1302/0301-620X.92B9.24605

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 7.Stulberg SD, Dolan M. The short stem: a thinking man's alternative to surface replacement. Orthopedics. 2008; 31(9):885–886.10.3928/01477447-20080901-37

    LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 8.Chen HH, Morrey BF, An KN, Luo ZP. Bone remodeling characteristics of a short-stemmed total hip replacement. J Arthroplasty. 2009; 24(6):945–950.10.1016/j.arth.2008.07.014

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 9.Whiteside LA, White SE, McCarthy DS. Effect of neck resection on torsional stability of cementless total hip replacement. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 1995; 24(10):766–770.

    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 10.Gronewold J, Berner S, Olender G, et al.Changes in strain patterns after implantation of a short stem with metaphyseal anchorage compared to a standard stem: an experimental study in synthetic bone. Orthop Rev (Pavia). 2014; 6(1):5211.10.4081/or.2014.5211

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 11.Patel RM, Stulberg SD. The rationale for short uncemented stems in total hip arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am. 2014; 45(1):19–31.10.1016/j.ocl.2013.08.007

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 12.Pozowski A, Ścigała K, Kierzek A, Paprocka-Borowicz M, Kuciel-Lewandowska J. Analysis of the influence of a Metha-type metaphysical stem on biomechanical parameters. Acta Bioeng Biomech. 2013; 15(2):13–21.

    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 13.Gill IR, Gill K, Jayasekera N, Miller J. Medium term results of the collum femoris preserving hydroxyapatite coated total hip replacement. Hip Int. 2008; 18(2):75–80.

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 14.Poolman RW, Verhaar JA, Schreurs BW, et al.Finding the right hip implant for patient and surgeon: the Dutch strategy. Empowering patients. Hip Int. 2015; 25(2):131–137.10.5301/hipint.5000209

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 15.Engh CA, McAuley JP, Sychterz CJ, Sacco ME, Engh CA. The accuracy and reproducibility of radiographic assessment of stress-shielding: a postmortem analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000; 82(10):1414–1420.

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 16.Mulliken BD, Bourne RB, Rorabeck CH, Nayak N. A tapered titanium femoral stem inserted without cement in a total hip arthroplasty: radiographic evaluation and stability. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1996; 78(8):1214–1225.

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 17.Gruen TA, McNeice GM, Amstutz HC. “Modes of failure” of cemented stem-type femoral components: a radiographic analysis of loosening. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1979; 141:17–27.

    Google Scholar
  • 18.Brooker AF, Bowerman JW, Robinson RA, Riley LH. Ectopic ossification following total hip replacement: incidence and a method of classification. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1973; 55(8):1629–1632.

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 19.Bieger R, Ignatius A, Decking R, Claes L, Reichel H, Dürselen L. Primary stability and strain distribution of cementless hip stems as a function of implant design. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2012; 27(2):158–164.10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2011.08.004

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 20.Swamy G, Pace A, Quah C, Howard P. The Bicontact cementless primary total hip arthroplasty: long-term results. Int Orthop. 2012; 36(5):915–920.10.1007/s00264-010-1123-4

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 21.Brown TE, Larson B, Shen F, Moskal JT. Thigh pain after cementless total hip arthroplasty: evaluation and management. J Am Acad Ortho Surg. 2002; 10(6):385–392.10.5435/00124635-200211000-00002

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 22.Østbyhaug P, Klaksvik J, Romundstad P, Aamodt A. An in vitro study of the strain distribution in human femora with anatomical and customised femoral stems. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009; 91(5): 676–682.10.1302/0301-620X.91B5.21749

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 23.Jerosch J, Grasselli C, Kothny PC, Litzkow D, Hennecke T. Reproduction of the anatomy (offset, CCD, leg length) with a modern short stem hip design: a radiological study [in German]. Z Orthop Unfall. 2012; 150(1):20–26.

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 24.Kamada S, Naito M, Nakamura Y, Kiyama T. Hip abductor muscle strength after total hip arthroplasty with short stems. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2011; 131(12):1723–1729.10.1007/s00402-011-1350-1

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 25.Floerkemeier T, Gronewold J, Berner S. The influence of resection height on proximal femoral strain patterns after Metha short stem hip arthroplasty: an experimental study on composite femora. Int Orthop. 2013; 37(3):369–377.10.1007/s00264-012-1725-0

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 26.Mihalko WM, Saleh KJ, Heller MO, Mollard B, König C, Kammerzell S. Femoral neck cut level affects positioning of modular short-stem implant. Orthopedics. 2009; 32(10):18–21.10.3928/01477447-20090915-53

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 27.Beals RK, Tower SS. Periprosthetic fractures of the femur: an analysis of 93 fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996; 327:238–246.10.1097/00003086-199606000-00029

    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 28.Berry DJ. Periprosthetic fractures associated with osteolysis: a problem on the rise. J Arthroplasty. 2003; 18(3 suppl 1):107–111.10.1054/arth.2003.50109

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 29.Krismer M, Biedermann R, Stöckl B, Fischer M, Bauer R, Haid C. The prediction of failure of the stem in THR by measurement of early migration using EBRA-FCA: Einzel-Bild-Roentgen-Analyse-femoral component analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1999; 81(2):273–280.10.1302/0301-620X.81B2.8840

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 30.Fottner A, Schmid M, Birkenmaier C, Mazoochian F, Plitz W, Volkmar J. Biomechanical evaluation of two types of short-stemmed hip prostheses compared to the trust plate prosthesis by three-dimensional measurement of micromotions. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2009; 24(5):429–434.10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2009.02.007

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar

We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. For a complete overview of all the cookies used, please see our privacy policy.

×