Abstract
Purpose
Short stem total hip arthroplasty (SHA) has gained increasing popularity as it conserves bone stock and is supposed to allow revision with a conventional stem. However, no study has evaluated whether the revision of a SHA with a standard total hip arthroplasty (THA) stem provides sufficient primary stability to allow osseous integration.
Methods
A neck preserving SHA (Metha) and a standard THA (CLS) stem were implanted into six composite femurs respectively and dynamically loaded (300–1700 N, 1 Hz). Primary stability was evaluated by three dimensional-micromotions (3D micro motion) at five points of the interface. Then, a revision scenario was created by removing the SHA and using the same CLS stem as a revision implant (CLS-revision group), with subsequent evaluation of the 3D micro motion according to the primary CLS stem.
Results
The 3D micro motion pattern significantly differed in the primary situation between the short and the standard stem. The highest 3D micro motion were registered proximally for the Metha and distally for the CLS stem. Revising the Metha with a CLS stem revealed a bony defect at the calcar. However, the 3D micro motion of the CLS-revision group were not significant higher compared to those of the primary CLS stem.
Conclusion
Our results show, that SHA (Metha) and standard THA (CLS) provide a good primary stability, however with different pattern of anchorage. The CLS stem reached a similar stability in this revision scenario as the CLS in the primary situation, wherefore it can be assumed that in uncomplicated revisions the Metha short stem can safely be revised with a CLS standard stem.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Schnurr C, Schellen B, Dargel J, Beckmann J, Eysel P, Steffen R (2016) Low short-stem revision rates: 1–11 year results from 1888 total hip arthroplasties. J Arthroplast. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2016.08.009
Huo SC, Wang F, Dong LJ, Wei W, Zeng JQ, Huang HX, Han QM, Duan RQ (2016) Short-stem prostheses in primary total hip arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Medicine (Baltimore) 95(43):e5215. doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000005215
van Oldenrijk J, Molleman J, Klaver M, Poolman RW, Haverkamp D (2014) Revision rate after short-stem total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review of 49 studies. Acta Orthop 85(3):250–258. doi:10.3109/17453674.2014.908343
Khanuja HS, Banerjee S, Jain D, Pivec R, Mont MA (2014) Short bone-conserving stems in cementless hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 96(20):1742–1752. doi:10.2106/JBJS.M.00780
von Lewinski G, Floerkemeier T (2015) 10-year experience with short stem total hip arthroplasty. Orthopedics 38(3 Suppl):S51–S56. doi:10.3928/01477447-20150215-57
Kutzner KP, Freitag T, Kovacevis MP, Pfeil D, Reichel H, Bieger R (2016) One-stage bilateral versus unilateral short-stem total hip arthroplasty: comparison of migration patterns using “Ein-Bild-Roentgen-Analysis Femoral-Component-Analysis”. Int Orthop. doi:10.1007/s00264-016-3184-5
Budde S, Seehaus F, Schwarze M, Hurschler C, Floerkemeier T, Windhagen H, Noll Y, Ettinger M, Thorey F (2016) Analysis of migration of the Nanos(R) short-stem hip implant within two years after surgery. Int Orthop 40(8):1607–1614. doi:10.1007/s00264-015-2999-9
Gronewold J, Berner S, Olender G, Hurschler C, Windhagen H, von Lewinski G, Floerkemeier T (2014) 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) 6(1):5211. doi:10.4081/or.2014.5211
Bieger R, Ignatius A, Decking R, Claes L, Reichel H, Durselen L (2012) Primary stability and strain distribution of cementless hip stems as a function of implant design. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 27(2):158–164. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2011.08.004
Hochreiter J, Hejkrlik W, Emmanuel K, Hitzl W, Ortmaier R (2016) Blood loss and transfusion rate in short stem hip arthroplasty. A comparative study. Int Orthop. doi:10.1007/s00264-016-3365-2
Molli RG, Lombardi AV Jr, Berend KR, Adams JB, Sneller MA (2012) A short tapered stem reduces intraoperative complications in primary total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470(2):450–461. doi:10.1007/s11999-011-2068-7
Aldinger PR, Jung AW, Breusch SJ, Ewerbeck V, Parsch D (2009) Survival of the cementless Spotorno stem in the second decade. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467(9):2297–2304. doi:10.1007/s11999-009-0906-7
Evola FR, Evola G, Graceffa A, Sessa A, Pavone V, Costarella L, Sessa G, Avondo S (2014) Performance of the CLS Spotorno uncemented stem in the third decade after implantation. Bone Joint J 96-B(4):455–461. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.96B4.32607
Biemond JE, Venkatesan S, van Hellemondt GG (2015) Survivorship of the cementless Spotorno femoral component in patients under 50 years of age at a mean follow-up of 18.4 years. Bone Joint J 97-B(2):160–163. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.97B2.34926
Bergmann G, Deuretzbacher G, Heller M, Graichen F, Rohlmann A, Strauss J, Duda GN (2001) Hip contact forces and gait patterns from routine activities. J Biomech 34(7):859–871
Schmidutz F, Woiczinski M, Kistler M, Schroder C, Jansson V, Fottner A (2016) Influence of different sizes of composite femora on the biomechanical behavior of cementless hip prosthesis. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 41:60–65. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2016.12.003
Fottner A, Peter CV, Schmidutz F, Wanke-Jellinek L, Schroder C, Mazoochian F, Jansson V (2011) Biomechanical evaluation of different offset versions of a cementless hip prosthesis by 3-dimensional measurement of micromotions. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 26(8):830–835. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2011.04.001
Gortz W, Nagerl UV, Nagerl H, Thomsen M (2002) Spatial micromovements of uncemented femoral components after torsional loads. J Biomech Eng 124(6):706–713
Pilliar RM, Lee JM, Maniatopoulos C (1986) Observations on the effect of movement on bone ingrowth into porous-surfaced implants. Clin Orthop Relat Res 208:108–113
Fottner A, Schmid M, Birkenmaier C, Mazoochian F, Plitz W, Volkmar J (2009) 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) 24(5):429–434. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2009.02.007
Pepke W, Nadorf J, Ewerbeck V, Streit MR, Kinkel S, Gotterbarm T, Maier MW, Kretzer JP (2014) Primary stability of the Fitmore stem: biomechanical comparison. Int Orthop 38(3):483–488. doi:10.1007/s00264-013-2138-4
Buhler DW, Berlemann U, Lippuner K, Jaeger P, Nolte LP (1997) Three-dimensional primary stability of cementless femoral stems. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 12(2):75–86
Nadorf J, Thomsen M, Gantz S, Sonntag R, Kretzer JP (2014) Fixation of the shorter cementless GTS stem: biomechanical comparison between a conventional and an innovative implant design. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 134(5):719–726. doi:10.1007/s00402-014-1946-3
Jakubowitz E, Bitsch RG, Heisel C, Lee C, Kretzer JP, Thomsen MN (2008) Primary rotational stability of cylindrical and conical revision hip stems as a function of femoral bone defects: an in vitro comparison. J Biomech 41(14):3078–3084. doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2008.06.002
Floerkemeier T, Gronewold J, Berner S, Olender G, Hurschler C, Windhagen H, von Lewinski G (2013) The influence of resection height on proximal femoral strain patterns after Metha short stem hip arthroplasty: an experimental study on composite femora. Int Orthop 37(3):369–377. doi:10.1007/s00264-012-1725-0
Acknowledgements
This study includes parts of the thesis of YS.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Funding
There is no funding source.
Ethical approval
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Informed consent
This article does not contain any studies with human participants wherefore no informed consent had to be obtained from individual participants.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Yan, S.G., Woiczinski, M., Schmidutz, T.F. et al. Can the metaphyseal anchored Metha short stem safely be revised with a standard CLS stem? A biomechanical analysis. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 41, 2471–2477 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-017-3497-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-017-3497-z