Is diaphyseal fixation of short neck-retaining stem prostheses related to the size of the implant?

Abstract

Introduction:

Short-stem hip prostheses present variable proximal femoral bone radiological findings. The aims of this study were to analyse, in our patients with implanted collum femoris-preserving (CFP) stems, cancellous bone remodelling, cortical distal hypertrophy and pedestal formation, and the relationship between those radiological changes that suggest distal fixation with the size of the stem.

Methods:

From October 2001 to December 2012 a total of 199 consecutive primary total hip arthroplasties in 180 patients were performed at our department using the CFP stem and followed up for a minimum of 5 years until December 2017.

Results:

Stress shielding was present in 74% of oversized stems cases, but in normal or undersized stems, stress shielding was present in 8.5%. Cortical hyperthrophy was observed in 49% of the oversized stems and in 6% of the normal or undersized ones. Finally, non-statistically significant differences (p = 0.089) in pedestal formation were found, present in 16.3% of the oversized stems and in 6% of normal or undersized ones.

Conclusions:

Oversized stems cause more stress shielding and distal cortical hypertrophy in the distal part of the stem, which indicates distal fixation in bigger sizes of stem.

Keywords

Bone remodelling hip prosthesis short stem size

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Banerjee

Pivec

Issa

, et al. Outcomes of short stems in total hip arthroplasty. Orthopedics 2013; 36: 700–707.

Loppini

Grappiolo

. Uncemented short stems in primary total hip arthroplasty: the state of art. EFORT Open Rev 2018; 3: 149–159.

Gruen

Mcneice

Amstutz

. Models of failure of cemented stem-type femoral components: a radiographic analysis of loosening. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1979; 141: 17–27.

Kress

Schmidt

Nowak

, et al. Stress-related femoral cortical and cancellous bone density loss after collum femoris preserving uncemented total hip arthroplasty: a prospective 7-year follow-up with quantitative computed tomography. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2012; 132: 1111–1119.

Behrens

Bouguecha

Lerch

, et al. Influence of hip prosthesis size and its coating area on bone remodelling. IEEE Trans Nanobiosci 2017; 16: 703–707.

Briem

Schneider

Boigner

, et al. Mid-term results of 155 patients treated with a collum femoris preserving (CFP) short stem prosthesis. Int Orthop 2011; 35: 655–660.

Nowak

Schmidt

, et al. Prospective study of a cementless total hip arthroplasty with a collum femoris preserving stem and a trabeculae oriented pressfit cup: minimun 6-year follow-up. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2011; 131: 549–555.

Lazarinis

Mattsson

Milbrink

, et al. A prospective cohort study on the short collum femoris preserving (CFP) using RSA and DXA. Primary stability but not prevention of proximal bone loss in 27 patients followed by 2 years. Acta Orthop 2013; 84: 32–39.

Wittenberg

Steffen

Windhagen

, et al. Five year results of a cementless short stem prosthesis. Orthop Rev (Pavia) 2013; 5: e4.

10.

Fischer

Beckmann

Simank

. Bone remodelling around the Metha^® short stem implant. Clinical and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) results. J Orthop 2017; 14: 525–529.

11.

Jahnke

Engl

Altmeyer

, et al. Changes in periprosthetic bone density after a cementless short hip stem: a clinical and radiological analysis. Int Orthop 2014; 38: 2045–2050.

12.

Synder

Krajewski

Sibinski

, et al. Periprosthetic bone remodeling around short stem. Orthopedics 2015; 38: 40–45.

13.

Capone

Bienati

Torchia

, et al. Short stem total hip arthroplasty for osteonecrosis of the femoral head in patients 60 years or younger: a 3 to 10 year follow-up study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2017; 18: 301.

14.

Logroscino

Ciriello

D’Antonio

, et al. Bone integration of new stemless hip implants (próxima vs nanos) A DEXA study: preliminary results. Int J Immunopathol Pharmacol 2011; 24: 113–116.

15.

Brinkmann

Radetzki

Delank

, et al. A prospective randomized radiographic and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometric study of migration and bone remodeling after implantation of two modern short-stemmed femoral prosthesis. J Orthop Traumatol 2015; 16: 237–243.

16.

Bieger

Ignatius

Reichel

, et al. Biomechanichs of a short stem: in vitro primary stability and stress shielding of a conservative cementless hip stem. J Orthop Res 2013; 31: 1180–1186.

17.

Shafy

Sayed

Abdelazeem

. Study of the bone behavior around a neck preserving short stem implant: bone densitometric analysis over a span of two years. SICOT J 2016; 2: 31.

18.

Maier

Streit

Innmann

, et al. Cortical hypertrophy with a short, curved uncemented hip stem does not have any clinical impact during early follow-up. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2015; 16: 371.

19.

Gustke

. Short stems for total hip arthroplasty: initial experience with the Fitmore stems. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2017; 94(Suppl. A): 47–51.

20.

Freitag

Hein

Wernerus

, et al. Bone remodelling after femortal short stem iomplantation in total hip arthroplasty: 1-year results from a randomized DEXA study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2015; 136: 125–130.

21.

Gasbarra

Celi

Perrone

, et al. Osseointregration of Fitmore stem in total hip arthroplasty. J Clin Densitom 2014; 17: 307–313.

22.

Amendola

Goetz

Liu

, et al. Two-to 4-year follow up of a short stem THA construct: excellent fixation, thigh pain a concern. Clin Orthop Rel Res 2017; 475: 375–383.

23.

Kim

Park

Kim

, et al. Long-term results and bone remodelling after THA with a short, methaphyseal-fitting anatomic cementless stem. Clin Orthop Rel Res 2014; 472: 943–950.

24.

Engh

Bobyn

Glassman

. Porous-coated hip replacement: the factors governing bone ingrowth, stress shielding and clinical results. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1987; 69: 45–55.

25.

Wacha

Domsel

Herrmann

. Long-term follow-up of 1217 consecutive short-stem total hip arthroplasty (THA): a retrospective single-center experience. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 2018; 44: 457–469.