Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Geometric analysis and clinical outcome of two cemented stems for primary total hip replacement with and without modular necks

  • Hip Arthroplasty
  • Published:
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Restoration of the physiological biomechanical principles of the hip is crucial in total hip replacement. The aim of this study was to compare an arthroplasty system with different offset options (a: Exeter®) with a dual-modular stem (b: Profemur Xm®).

Materials and methods

A local and an inertial coordinate system were used to assist the description of the components’ assembly in the prosthesis. A resection line of the femoral head in standard position was added to the arthroplasties and geometric parameters were measured. The outcomes of 93 patients were clinically evaluated (a: n = 50, b: n = 43). Preoperative planning was compared to postoperative radiographs (femoral offset, leg-length), and clinical scores (HHS, WOMAC, total range of motion) were assessed preoperatively, and then 1 and 2 years after surgery.

Results

The Exeter® offers an offset range from 32.1 to 56.9 mm and the Profemur Xm® a range from 29.3 to 55.3 mm. The leg-length variability of the Profemur Xm® has a range of 25.9 mm, the Exeter® a range of 13.7 mm. The Profemur Xm® offers more possible combinations of offset and leg-length reconstruction. The neck–stem angles of the Exeter® range from 125.2° to 126.3°, of the Profemur Xm® from 127.2° to 142.6°. There was no statistically significant difference in clinical outcome and radiological parameters.

Conclusions

We conclude that both stems offer a wide range of options for anatomical reconstruction of the hip resulting in similarly good clinical results. The Profemur Xm® stem has advantages for the reconstruction of hips that deviate from standard anatomy but has the drawback of additional corrosive wear at the stem/neck interface.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Asayama I, Chamnongkich S, Simpson KJ, Kinsey TL, Mahoney OM (2005) Reconstructed hip joint position and abductor muscle strength after total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 20(4):414–420. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2004.01.016

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Asayama I, Naito M, Fujisawa M, Kambe T (2002) Relationship between radiographic measurements of reconstructed hip joint position and the Trendelenburg sign. J Arthroplasty 17(6):747–751

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. McGrory BJ, Morrey BF, Cahalan TD, An KN, Cabanela ME (1995) Effect of femoral offset on range of motion and abductor muscle strength after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 77(6):865–869

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Yamaguchi T, Naito M, Asayama I, Ishiko T (2004) Total hip arthroplasty: the relationship between posterolateral reconstruction, abductor muscle strength, and femoral offset. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 12(2):164–167

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Sakalkale DP, Sharkey PF, Eng K, Hozack WJ, Rothman RH (2001) Effect of femoral component offset on polyethylene wear in total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 388:125–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Howie DW (1990) Tissue response in relation to type of wear particles around failed hip arthroplasties. J Arthroplasty 5(4):337–348

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Fujita Y, Takagi H, Hase T (1998) Cloning of the gene encoding a protochlorophyllide reductase: the physiological significance of the co-existence of light-dependent and -independent protochlorophyllide reduction systems in the cyanobacterium Plectonema boryanum. Plant Cell Physiol 39(2):177–185

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Davey JR, O’Connor DO, Burke DW, Harris WH (1993) Femoral component offset. Its effect on strain in bone-cement. J Arthroplasty 8(1):23–26

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kleemann RU, Heller MO, Stoeckle U, Taylor WR, Duda GN (2003) THA loading arising from increased femoral anteversion and offset may lead to critical cement stresses. J Orthop Res 21(5):767–774. doi:10.1016/S0736-0266(03)00040-8

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Sariali E, Lazennec JY, Khiami F, Catonne Y (2009) Mathematical evaluation of jumping distance in total hip arthroplasty: influence of abduction angle, femoral head offset, and head diameter. Acta Orthop 80(3):277–282. doi:10.3109/17453670902988378

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Bobyn JD, Tanzer M, Krygier JJ, Dujovne AR, Brooks CE (1994) Concerns with modularity in total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 298:27–36

    Google Scholar 

  12. Collier JP, Mayor MB, Jensen RE, Surprenant VA, Surprenant HP, McNamar JL, Belec L (1992) Mechanisms of failure of modular prostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res 285:129–139

    Google Scholar 

  13. Barrack RL, Burke DW, Cook SD, Skinner HB, Harris WH (1993) Complications related to modularity of total hip components. J Bone Joint Surg Br 75(5):688–692

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Helm CS, Greenwald AS (2005) The rationale and performance of modularity in total hip arthroplasty. Orthopedics 28(9 Suppl):s1113–s1115

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Reigstad O, Siewers P, Rokkum M, Espehaug B (2008) Excellent long-term survival of an uncemented press-fit stem and screw cup in young patients: follow-up of 75 hips for 15–18 years. Acta Orthop 79(2):194–202. doi:10.1080/17453670710014978

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Clark JM, Freeman MA, Witham D (1987) The relationship of neck orientation to the shape of the proximal femur. J Arthroplasty 2(2):99–109

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Widmer KH, Majewski M (2005) The impact of the CCD-angle on range of motion and cup positioning in total hip arthroplasty. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 20(7):723–728. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2005.04.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Johnston RC, Brand RA, Crowninshield RD (1979) Reconstruction of the hip. A mathematical approach to determine optimum geometric relationships. J Bone Joint Surg Am 61(5):639–652

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Simpson DJ, Little JP, Gray H, Murray DW, Gill HS (2009) Effect of modular neck variation on bone and cement mantle mechanics around a total hip arthroplasty stem. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 24(3):274–285

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Aljenaei F, Catelas I, Louati H, Beaule PE, Nganbe M (2016) Effects of hip implant modular neck material and assembly method on fatigue life and distraction force. J Orthop Res. doi:10.1002/jor.23481

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Menciere ML, Amouyel T, Taviaux J, Bayle M, Laterza C, Mertl P (2014) Fracture of the cobalt-chromium modular femoral neck component in total hip arthroplasty. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 100(5):565–568. doi:10.1016/j.otsr.2014.03.027

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Somers JF, Dedrye L, Goeminne S (2016) Metal ion levels in ceramic-on-ceramic THR with cobalt-chrome modular necks: analysis of cobalt and chromium serum levels in 23 healthy hip patients. Hip Int. doi:10.5301/hipint.5000430

    Google Scholar 

  23. Ghanem E, Ward DM, Robbins CE, Nandi S, Bono JV, Talmo CT (2015) Corrosion and adverse local tissue reaction in one type of modular neck stem. J Arthroplasty 30(10):1787–1793. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2015.04.039

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hernandez A, Gargallo-Margarit A, Barro V, Gallardo-Calero I, Sallent A (2015) Fracture of the modular neck in total hip arthroplasty. Case Rep Orthop 2015:591509. doi:10.1155/2015/591509

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Ang Yen Kee and Ng Joo Nian for their contributions to this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, University of Duisburg-Essen, Hufelandstr. 55, 45147, Essen, Germany

    Marcel Haversath, Christine Wendelborn, Marcus Jäger, Boris Schmidt & Stefan Landgraeber

  2. Chair of Mechanics and Robotics, University of Duisburg-Essen, Lotharstr. 1, 47057, Duisburg, Germany

    Wojciech Kowalczyk

Authors
  1. Marcel Haversath
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christine Wendelborn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marcus Jäger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Boris Schmidt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Wojciech Kowalczyk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Stefan Landgraeber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefan Landgraeber.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

One of the authors is a consultant at Microport® Orthopedics.

Funding

There is no funding source.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Haversath, M., Wendelborn, C., Jäger, M. et al. Geometric analysis and clinical outcome of two cemented stems for primary total hip replacement with and without modular necks. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 137, 1571–1578 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-017-2785-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-017-2785-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation