International Orthopaedics

, Volume 35, Issue 5, pp 655–660 | Cite as

Mid-term results of 155 patients treated with a collum femoris preserving (CFP) short stem prosthesis

  • Daniel BriemEmail author
  • Michael Schneider
  • Nicole Bogner
  • Nadine Botha
  • Matthias Gebauer
  • Thorsten Gehrke
  • Bernd Schwantes
Original Paper


Short stem prostheses that preserve the femoral neck are becoming more and more popular. The CFP (collum femoris preserving) has been introduced especially for the treatment of younger patients. However, information about remodelling, complications and learning curve are thus far rare. We present a retrospective study of 155 patients (average age 59.3 ± 9.9 years) who underwent total hip replacement with the CFP prosthesis. Follow-up was obtained 74.3 ± 9.4 months postoperatively. The Harris hip score revealed excellent and good results in 96%. One stem had to be exchanged due to aseptic loosening revealing a survival rate of 99% and 100% for stem and cup, respectively. Radiological analysis showed typical patterns of remodelling with apearance of cortical thickening predominantly in the distal part of the prosthesis. Implant related revision rate was <1%, with further complication rate independent of the surgeon’s individual experience. With regard to outcome, survivorship and complication rate, the medium-term results of the CFP prosthesis are promising.


Periprosthetic Fracture Thigh Pain Bony Ingrowth Periprosthetic Bone Loss Thrust Plate Prosthesis 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Conflict of interest

Daniel Briem, Thorsten Gehrke and Bernd Schwantes received funds for scientific presentations by Waldemar Link GmbH, Hamburg, Germany.


  1. 1.
    Pipino F, Molfetta L (1993) Femoral neck preservation in total hip replacement. Ital J Orthop Traumatol 19(1):5–12PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stukenborg-Colsman C (2007) Femoral neck prostheses. Orthopaede 36:347–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Decking R, Rokahr C, Zurstegge M, Simon U, Decking J (2008) Maintenance of bone mineral density after implantation of a femoral neck hip prosthesis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 9:17–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stea S, Bordini B, De Clerico M, Petropulacos K, Toni A (2009) First hip arthroplasty register in Italy: 55,000 cases and 7 year follow-up. Int Orthop 33(2):339–346PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gill IR, Gill K, Jayasekera N, Miller J (2008) Medium term results of the collum femoris preserving hydroxyapatite coated total hip replacement. Hip Int 18(2):75–80Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brown TE, Larson B, Shen F, Moskal JT (2002) Thigh pain after cementless total hip arthroplasty: evaluation and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 10(6):385–392PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kinov P, Radl R, Zacherl M, Leithner A, Windhager R (2007) Correlation between thigh pain and radiological findings with a proximally porous-coated stem. Acta Orthop Belg 73(5):618–624PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Röhrl SM, Li MG, Pedersen E, Ullmark G, Nivbrant B (2006) Migration pattern of a short femoral neck preserving stem. Clin Orthop Relat Res 448:73–78PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gebauer D, Refior HJ, Haake M (1990) Experimental studies of the effect of surgical technical errors on primary stability of cementless hip endoprosthesis shafts. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 128(1):100–107Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Albanese CV, Rendine M, De Palma F, Impagliazzo A, Falez F, Postacchini F, Villani C, Passariello R, Santori FS (2006) Bone remodelling in THA: a comparative DXA scan study between conventional implants and a new stemless femoral component. A preliminary report. Hip Int 16(Suppl 3):9–15PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chen HH, Morrey BF, An KN, Luo ZP (2009) Bone remodeling characteristics of a short-stemmed total hip replacement. J Arthroplasty 24(6):945–950Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gillies RM, Kohan L, Cordingley R (2007) Periprosthetic bone remodelling of a collum femoris preserving cementless titanium femoral hip replacement. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng 10(2):97–102Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Speirs AD, Heller MO, Taylor WR, Duda GN, Perka C (2007) Influence of changes in stem positioning on femoral loading after THR using a short-stemmed hip implant. Clin Biomech 22(4):431–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sumner DR, Galante JO (1992) Determinants of stress shielding: design versus materials versus interface. Clin Orthop Relat Res 274:202–212PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chambers B, St Clair SF, Froimson MI (2007) Hydroxyapatite-coated tapered cementless femoral components in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 22(4 Suppl 1):71–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mont MA, Yoon TR, Krackow KA, Hungerford DS (1999) Clinical experience with a proximally porous-coated second-generation cementless total hip prosthesis: minimum 5-year follow-up. J Arthroplasty 14(8):930–939PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Farrell CM, Springer BD, Haidukewych GJ, Morrey BF (2005) Motornerve palsy following primary total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Jt Surg Am 87(12):2619–2625Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Davidson D, Pike J, Garbuz D, Duncan CP, Masri BA (2008) Intraoperative periprosthetic fractures during total hip arthroplasty. Evaluation and management. J Bone Jt Surg Am 90(9):2000–2012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Thomsen MN, Jakubowitz E, Seeger JB, Lee C, Kretzer JP, Clarius M (2008) Fracture load for periprosthetic femoral fractures in cemented versus uncemented hip stems: an experimental in vitro study. Orthopedics 31(7):653PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jakubowitz E, Seeger JB, Lee C, Heisel C, Kretzer JP, Thomsen MN (2009) Do short-stemmed-prostheses induce periprosthetic fractures earlier than standard hip stems? A biomechanical ex-vivo study of two different stem designs. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 129(6):849–855PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Flamme CH, Stukenborg-Colsman C, Wirth CJ (2006) Evaluation of the learning curves associated with uncemented primary total hip arthroplasty depending on the experience of the surgeon. Hip Int 16(3):191–197Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    van Oldenrijk J, Schafroth MU, Bhandari M, Runne WC, Poolman RW (2008) Time-action analysis (TAA) of the surgical technique implanting the collum femoris preserving (CFP) hip arthroplasty. TAASTIC trial Identifying pitfalls during the learning curve of surgeons participating in a subsequent randomized controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 9:93–101PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel Briem
    • 1
    Email author
  • Michael Schneider
    • 1
  • Nicole Bogner
    • 1
  • Nadine Botha
    • 1
  • Matthias Gebauer
    • 1
  • Thorsten Gehrke
    • 1
  • Bernd Schwantes
    • 1
  1. 1.Endoclinic HamburgHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations