International Orthopaedics

, Volume 43, Issue 2, pp 307–314 | Cite as

Femoral stem subsidence in cementless total hip arthroplasty: a retrospective single-centre study

  • Christian RiesEmail author
  • Christoph Kolja Boese
  • Florian Dietrich
  • Wolfgang Miehlke
  • Christian Heisel
Original Paper


Purpose and hypothesis

Subsidence is a known reason for early failure of total hip arthroplasty (THA). In particular, cementless THA might be vulnerable to migration. The present study analysed femoral stem subsidence after primary cementless THA. Prosthetic and anatomical risk factors for early femoral stem subsidence were evaluated.


Two hundred thirty-one consecutive patients who underwent primary cementless THA in a single centre were retrospectively analysed. Post-operative results were evaluated in consideration of prosthetic and anatomical properties in correlation with subsidence on standing pelvic anteroposterior radiographs. Stem type and design, demographic data, BMI, canal flare index (CFI) and canal fill ratio (CFR) were evaluated.


The subsidence rate was significantly higher in collarless femoral stems [3.1 mm (SD 2.8 mm) vs. 1.9 mm (SD 1.5 mm); p = 0.013] while the anatomical type of the proximal femur as described by the canal flare index did not influenced subsidence (p = 0.050). Also, the canal fill ratio showed no significant correlation with subsidence at any level.


In the present study, stem subsidence was significantly higher in the collarless group compared to collared stems. No anatomical parameter (CFI and CFR) could be identified as risk factor for subsidence. Neither age nor BMI influenced subsidence in this cohort. Still, subgroup analysis indicated a sex-dependent role of BMI. Prospective studies of large cohorts should address the problem of subsidence in the future.

Level of evidence

Retrospective therapeutic study, Level IV.


Hip arthroplasty Stem subsidence Aseptic loosening Cementless THA 



We thank Dr. N. Venkatesh Kumar for measurements and data acquisition.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.


  1. 1.
    Campbell D, Mercer G, Nilsson KG et al (2011) Early migration characteristics of a hydroxyapatite-coated femoral stem: an RSA study. Int Orthop 35(4):483–488. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kärrholm J, Borssén B, Löwenhielm G et al (1994) Does early micromotion of femoral stem prostheses matter? 4–7-year stereoradiographic follow-up of 84 cemented prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 76(6):912–917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Al-Najjim M, Khattak U, Sim J et al (2016) Differences in subsidence rate between alternative designs of a commonly used uncemented femoral stem. J Orthop 5;13(4):322–326. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ström H, Nilsson O, Milbrink J et al (2007) Early migration pattern of the uncemented CLS stem in total hip arthroplasties. Clin Orthop Relat Res 454:127–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Selvaratnam V, Shetty V, Sahni V (2015) Subsidence in collarless Corail hip replacement. Open Orthop J 29(9):194–197. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sudhahar TA, Morapudi S, Branes K (2009) Evaluation of subsidence between collarless and collared Corail femoral cement less total hip replacement. J. Orthopaedics 6(2):e3 URL: Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ström H, Mallmin H, Milbrink J et al (2003) The cone hip stem: a prospective study of 13 patients followed for 5 years with RSA. Acta Orthop Scand 74(5):525–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Noble PC, Alexander JW, Lindahl LJ et al (1988) The anatomic basis of femoral component design. Clin Orthop Relat Res 235:148–165Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Meding JB, Ritter MA, Keating EM et al (1997) Comparison of collared and collarless femoral components in primary uncemented total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 12(3):273–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Froimson MI, Garino J, Machenaud A et al (2007) Minimum 10-year results of a tapered, titanium, hydroxyapatite-coated hip stem: an independent review. J Arthroplasty 22(1):1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jameson SS, Baker PN, Mason J et al (2013) Independent predictors of failure up to 7.5 years after 35 386 single-brand cementless total hip replacements: a retrospective cohort study using National Joint Registry data. Bone Joint J 95-B(6):747–757. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Demey G, Fary C, Lustig S et al (2011) Does a collar improve the immediate stability of uncemented femoral hip stems in total hip arthroplasty? A bilateral comparative cadaver study. J Arthroplasty 26(8):1549–1555. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Faisal M, Thomas G, Young SK (2011) Subsidence of the Corail femoral component in the elderly. A retrospective radiological review. Hip Int 21(3):325–329. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kelley SS, Fitzgerald RH Jr, Rand JA, Ilstrup DM (1993) A prospective randomized study of a collar versus a collarless femoral prosthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res (294):114–122Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ishii S, Homma Y, Baba T et al (2016) Does the canal fill ratio and femoral morphology of Asian females influence early radiographic outcomes of total hip arthroplasty with an uncemented proximally coated, tapered-wedge stem? J Arthroplast 31(7):1524–1528. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vidalain JP (2011) Twenty-year results of the cementless Corail stem. Int Orthop 35(2):189–194. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ström H, Nilsson O, Milbrink J et al (2007) The effect of early weight bearing on migration pattern of the uncemented CLS stem in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 22(8):1122–1129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Albrektsson T, Brånemark PI, Hansson HA et al (1981) Osseointegrated titanium implants. Requirements for ensuring a long-lasting, direct bone-to-implant anchorage in man. Acta Orthop Scand 52(2):155–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Galante J, Rostoker W, Lueck R et al (1971) Sintered fiber metal composites as a basis for attachment of implants to bone. J Bone Joint Surg Am 53(1):101–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Engh CA, O'Connor D, Jasty M, McGovern TF et al (1992) Quantification of implant micromotion, strain shielding, and bone resorption with porous-coated anatomic medullary locking femoral prostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res 285:13–29Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Burke DW, O'Connor DO, Zalenski EB et al (1991) Micromotion of cemented and uncemented femoral components. J Bone Joint Surg Br 73(1):33–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Callaghan JJ, Fulghum CS, Glisson RR et al (1992) The effect of femoral stem geometry on interface motion in uncemented porous-coated total hip prostheses. Comparison of straight-stem and curved-stem designs. J Bone Joint Surg Am 74(6):839–848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hua J, Walker PS (1994) Relative motion of hip stems under load. An in vitro study of symmetrical, asymmetrical, and custom asymmetrical designs. J Bone Joint Surg Am 76(1):95–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cameron HU, Pilliar RM, MacNab I (1973) The effect of movement on the bonding of porous metal to bone. J Biomed Mater Res 7(4):301–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Haddad RJ Jr, Cook SD, Thomas KA (1987) Biological fixation of porous-coated implants. J Bone Joint Surg Am 69(9):1459–1466 ReviewCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pilliar RM, Lee JM, Maniatopoulos C (1986) Observations on the effect of movement on bone ingrowth into porous-surfaced implants. Clin Orthop Relat Res 208:108–113Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Boese CK, Bredow J, Dargel J, Eysel P et al (2016) Calibration marker position in digital templating of total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 31(4):883–887. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© SICOT aisbl 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian Ries
    • 1
    Email author
  • Christoph Kolja Boese
    • 1
  • Florian Dietrich
    • 2
  • Wolfgang Miehlke
    • 2
  • Christian Heisel
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic SurgeryUniversity Hospital of CologneCologneGermany
  2. 2.ARCUS Kliniken PforzheimPforzheimGermany
  3. 3.Orthopädie KurpfalzSpeyerGermany

Personalised recommendations