Shorter, anatomically shaped and proximally loading stems have been developed to achieve better stress distribution and be more bone preserving. The purpose of this prospective study was to evaluate the migration pattern of the Proxima™ ultra-short uncemented stem using radiostereometric analysis (RSA), and to review the literature regarding the migration of short stemmed hip arthroplasty.
Methods
25 patients (28 hips) with hip osteoarthritis received a Proxima stem during total hip arthroplasty (THA). To measure stem migration, repeated RSA examinations were done during a 2 year follow up period. The patients were evaluated with the hip specific (HOOS) and the generic health (EQ5D) scores up to 1 year, and clinically for 6 years postoperatively.
Results
Almost all migration occurred within the first 3 months, with mean subsidence of 0.22 mm and varus rotation of 1.04°, being the primary effect variables. After the third postoperative month and up to the 2 year RSA follow up no further significant migration occurred. The outcome scores showed substantial improvement after 1 year. No revisions were performed or indicated for any stem after a mean clinical follow up of 72.1 months.
Conclusions
Like many other uncemented stems, the Proxima showed early migration up to 3 months hereafter osseointegration seems to have occurred. The achieved stability and clinical outcomes indicate favorable early results for this stem in younger patients who have good bone quality and average BMI. We found, however, the surgical technique to be slightly more demanding compared to conventional stems owing to the unique implant design that necessitates specific adjusted femoral cutting and broaching procedures.
GulowJ.ScholzR.Freiherr von Salis-SoglioG.[Short-stemmed endoprostheses in total hip arthroplasty] [in German]. Orthopade.2007; 36(4): 353–359.
2.
GheduzziS.MilesA.W.A review of pre-clinical testing of femoral stem subsidence and comparison with clinical data. Proc Inst Mech Eng H.2007; 221(1): 39–46.
3.
PilliarR.M.LeeJ.M.ManiatopoulosC.Observations on the effect of movement on bone ingrowth into porous-surfaced implants. Clin Orthop Relat Res.1986; (208): 108–113.
4.
KrismerM.BiedermannR.StöcklB.FischerM.BauerR.HaidC.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.
5.
MalchauH.BragdonC.R.MuratogluO.K.The stepwise introduction of innovation into orthopedic surgery: the next level of dilemmas. J Arthroplasty.2011; 26(6): 825–831.
6.
CallaryS.A.CampbellD.G.MercerG.E.NilssonK.G.FieldJ.R.The 6-year migration characteristics of a hydroxyapatite-coated femoral stem: a radiostereometric analysis study. J Arthroplasty.2012; 27(7): 1344–1348.e1.
7.
KärrholmJ.HerbertsP.HultmarkP.MalchauH.NivbrantB.ThannerJ.Radiostereometry of hip prostheses. Review of methodology and clinical results. Clin Orthop Relat Res.1997; (344): 94–110.
8.
NistorL.BlahaJ.D.KjellströmU.SelvikG.In vivo measurements of relative motion between an uncemented femoral total hip component and the femur by roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res.1991; (269): 220–227.
9.
SøballeK.Toksvig-LarsenS.GelineckJ.Migration of hydroxyapatite coated femoral prostheses. A Roentgen Stereophotogrammetric study. J Bone Joint Surg Br.1993; 75(5): 681–687.
10.
ValstarE.R.GillR.RydL.FlivikG.BörlinN.KärrholmJ.Guidelines for standardization of radiostereometry (RSA) of implants. Acta Orthop.2005; 76(4): 563–572.
NilsdotterA.K.LohmanderL.S.KlässboM.RoosE.M.Hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score (HOOS)—validity and responsiveness in total hip replacement. BMC Musculoskelet Disord.2003; 4(1): 10.
14.
KlässboM.LarssonE.MannevikE.Hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score. An extension of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. Scand J Rheumatol.2003; 32(1): 46–51.
15.
EuroQol Group. EuroQol—a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy.1990; 16(3): 199–208.
16.
ReimeringerM.NuñoN.Desmarais-TrépanierC.LavigneM.VendittoliP.A.The influence of uncemented femoral stem length and design on its primary stability: a finite element analysis. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin.2013; 16(11): 1221–1231.
17.
WestphalF.M.BishopN.HonlM.HilleE.PüschelK.MorlockM.M.Migration and cyclic motion of a new short-stemmed hip prosthesis—a biomechanical in vitro study. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon).2006; 21(8): 834–840.
18.
McCaldenR.W.KorczakA.SomervilleL.YuanX.NaudieD.D.A randomised trial comparing a short and a standard-length metaphyseal engaging cementless femoral stem using radiostereometric analysis. Bone Joint J.2015; 97-B(5): 595–602.
19.
SalemyrM.MurenO.AhlT.Lower periprosthetic bone loss and good fixation of an ultra-short stem compared to a conventional stem in uncemented total hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop.2015; 86(6): 659–666.
20.
RöhrlS.M.LiM.G.PedersenE.UllmarkG.NivbrantB.Migration pattern of a short femoral neck preserving stem. Clin Orthop Relat Res.2006; 448: 73–78.
21.
SchmidutzF.GrafT.MazoochianF.FottnerA.Bauer-MelnykA.JanssonV.Migration analysis of a metaphyseal anchored short-stem hip prosthesis. Acta Orthop.2012; 83(4): 360–365.
22.
NieuwenhuijseM.J.ValstarE.R.NelissenRGHH. 5-year clinical and radiostereometric analysis (RSA) follow-up of 39 CUT femoral neck total hip prostheses in young osteoarthritis patients. Acta Orthop.2012; 83(4): 334–341.
23.
LazarinisS.MattssonP.MilbrinkJ.MallminH.HailerN.P.A prospective cohort study on the short collum femoris-preserving (CFP) stem using RSA and DXA. Primary stability but no prevention of proximal bone loss in 27 patients followed for 2 years. Acta Orthop.2013; 84(1): 32–39.
24.
CinottiG.Della RoccaA.SessaP.RipaniF.R.GiannicolaG.Thigh pain, subsidence and survival using a short cementless femoral stem with pure metaphyseal fixation at minimum 9-year follow-up. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res.2013; 99(1): 30–36.
25.
FreitagT.KappeT.FuchsM.JungS.ReichelH.BiegerR.Migration pattern of a femoral short-stem prosthesis: a 2-year EBRAFCA-study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg.2014; 134(7): 1003–1008.
26.
KaipelM.GrabowieckiP.SinzK.FarrS.SinzG.Migration characteristics and early clinical results of the NANOS® short-stem hip arthroplasty. Wien Klin Wochenschr.2015; 127(9-10): 375–378.
27.
BuddeS.SeehausF.SchwarzeM.Analysis of migration of the Nanos® short-stem hip implant within two years after surgery. Int Orthop.2016; 40(8): 1607–1614.
28.
AcklinY.P.JenniR.BereiterH.ThalmannC.StoffelK.Prospective clinical and radiostereometric analysis of the Fitmore short-stem total hip arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg.2016; 136(2): 277–284.
29.
KutznerK.P.PfeilD.KovacevicM.P.Radiographic alterations in short-stem total hip arthroplasty: a 2-year follow-up study of 216 cases. Hip Int.2016; 26(3): 278–283.
30.
StrömH.NilssonO.MilbrinkJ.MallminH.LarssonS.Early migration pattern of the uncemented CLS stem in total hip arthroplasties. Clin Orthop Relat Res.2007; 454(454): 127–132.
31.
KobayashiA.DonnellyW.J.ScottG.FreemanM.A.Early radiological observations may predict the long-term survival of femoral hip prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Br.1997; 79(4): 583–589.
32.
de VriesL.M.van der WeegenW.PilotP.StolarczykP.A.SijbesmaT.HoffmanE.L.The predictive value of radiostereometric analysis for stem survival in total hip arthroplasty. A systematic review. Hip Int.2014; 24(3): 215–222.
33.
SarialiE.MouttetA.MordasiniP.CatonnéY.High 10-year survival rate with an anatomic cementless stem (SPS). Clin Orthop Relat Res.2012; 470(7): 1941–1949.
34.
MorreyB.F.AdamsR.A.KesslerM.A conservative femoral replacement for total hip arthroplasty. A prospective study. J Bone Joint Surg Br.2000; 82(7): 952–958.
35.
KimY.H.OhJ.H.A comparison of a conventional versus a short, anatomical metaphyseal-fitting cementless femoral stem in the treatment of patients with a fracture of the femoral neck. J Bone Joint Surg Br.2012; 94(6): 774–781.
36.
SantoriF.S.SantoriN.Mid-term results of a custom-made short proximal loading femoral component. J Bone Joint Surg Br.2010; 92(9): 1231–1237.
37.
JastyM.BragdonC.BurkeD.O'ConnorD.LowensteinJ.HarrisW.H.In vivo skeletal responses to porous-surfaced implants subjected to small induced motions. J Bone Joint Surg Am.1997; 79(5): 707–714.
38.
BiegerR.IgnatiusA.ReichelH.DürselenL.Biomechanics of a short stem: In vitro primary stability and stress shielding of a conservative cementless hip stem. J Orthop Res.2013; 31(8): 1180–1186.
39.
LealiA.FettoJ.F.Preservation of femoral bone mass after total hip replacements with a lateral flare stem. Int Orthop.2004; 28(3): 151–154.
40.
LearmonthI.D.Conservative stems in total hip replacement. Hip Int.2009; 19(3): 195–200.
41.
d'ImporzanoM.PierannunziiL.Minimally invasive total hip replacement. J Orthop Trauma.2006; 7(1): 42–50.
42.
BrownT.E.LarsonB.ShenF.MoskalJ.T.Thigh pain after cementless total hip arthroplasty: evaluation and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg.2002; 10(6): 385–392.
43.
KimY.H.KimJ.S.ChoS.H.Primary total hip arthroplasty with a cementless porous-coated anatomic total hip prosthesis: 10- to 12-year results of prospective and consecutive series. J Arthroplasty.1999; 14(5): 538–548.
44.
VresilovicE.J.HozackW.J.RothmanR.H.Incidence of thigh pain after uncemented total hip arthroplasty as a function of femoral stem size. J Arthroplasty.1996; 11(3): 304–311.
45.
SzendrõiM.SztrinkaiG.VassR.KissJ.The impact of minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty on the standard procedure. Int Orthop.2006; 30(3): 167–171.
