Advertisement

Femoral neck preservation with a short hip stem produced with powder manufacturing: mid-term results of a consecutive case series

  • Marco SchiraldiEmail author
  • Manuel Bondi
  • Lodovico Renzi Brivio
Original Article • HIP - ARTHROPLASTY
  • 17 Downloads

Abstract

Stress shielding and thigh pain are not uncommon after cementless total hip arthroplasty (THA) using conventional hip stems. It has been postulated that short, neck-preserving stems may overcome these disadvantages of standard stems and, hence, further improve clinical outcome. The purpose of our retrospective study was to assess the mid-term performance of a neck-preserving hip stem for which, as of yet, no clinical results have been published. A population of 146 consecutive patients who received 152 neck-preserving stems over a 1.6-year period was retrospectively reviewed. Harris Hip Score (HHS) and the Western Ontario and McMasters Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) were collected, along with radiographic data. One hundred and forty-four THAs implanted in 136 patients were available for analysis. After a mean follow-up of 56 months, mean HHS and WOMAC improved significantly versus preoperative values. Aseptic loosening was not observed. Five-year survival with revision of any component for any reason as the endpoint was 99.3% (95% confidence interval, 95.2–99.9%). Excellent mid-term clinical and radiographic outcomes were observed with the study device. We attribute this to the metaphyseal fit in combination with retention of the femoral neck. However, our findings need to be confirmed by multicentre studies with larger patient samples.

Keywords

Clinical outcome Minimally invasive surgery Neck preservation Osteoarthritis Total hip arthroplasty 

Notes

Funding

Funding for manuscript development was provided by Adler Ortho, Cormano, Italy. The sponsor had no involvement in the writing of the report or in the decision to submit the results for publication.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

Ethics committee approval was obtained prior to study commencement.

Informed consent

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

References

  1. 1.
    Daigle ME, Weinstein AM, Katz JN, Losina E (2012) The cost-effectiveness of total joint arthroplasty: a systematic review of published literature. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 26(5):649–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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):1742–1752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lavernia C, D’Apuzzo M, Hernandez V, Lee D (2004) Thigh pain in primary total hip arthroplasty: the effects of elastic moduli. J Arthroplasty 19(7 Suppl 2):10–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Noble PC, Alexander JW, Lindahl LJ, Yew DT, Granberry WM, Tullos HS (1988) The anatomic basis of femoral component design. Clin Orthop Relat Res 235(235):148–165Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sendtner E, Tibor S, Winkler R, Worner M, Grifka J, Renkawitz T (2010) Stem torsion in total hip replacement. Acta Orthop 81(5):579–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Worlicek M, Weber M, Craiovan B, Wörner M, Völlner F, Springorum HR, Grifka J, Renkawitz T (2016) Native femoral anteversion should not be used as reference in cementless total hip arthroplasty with a straight, tapered stem: a retrospective clinical study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 17:399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rajakulendran K, Field RE (2012) Neck-preserving femoral stems. HSS J 8(3):295–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nunn D, Freeman MA, Tanner KE, Bonfield W (1989) Torsional stability of the femoral component of hip arthroplasty. Response to an anteriorly applied load. J Bone Joint Surg Br 71(3):452–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Traina F, De Clerico M, Biondi F, Pilla F, Tassinari E, Toni A (2009) Sex differences in hip morphology: is stem modularity effective for total hip replacement? J Bone Joint Surg Am 91(Suppl 6):121–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lindahl H (2007) Epidemiology of periprosthetic femur fracture around a total hip arthroplasty. Injury 38(6):651–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    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 2 years after surgery. Int Orthop 40(8):1607–1614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yan SG, Woiczinski M, Schmidutz TF, Weber P, Paulus AC, Steinbruck A, Jansson V, Schmidutz F (2017) Can the metaphyseal anchored Metha short stem safely be revised with a standard CLS stem? A biomechanical analysis. Int Orthop 41(12):2471–2477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hochreiter J, Hejkrlik W, Emmanuel K, Hitzl W, Ortmaier R (2017) Blood loss and transfusion rate in short stem hip arthroplasty. A comparative study. Int Orthop 41(7):1347–1353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dabirrahmani D, Hogg M, Kohan L, Gillies M (2010) Primary and long-term stability of a short-stem hip implant. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 224(9):1109–1119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kim YH, Park JW, Kim JS (2013) Is diaphyseal stem fixation necessary for primary total hip arthroplasty in patients with osteoporotic bone (Class C bone)? J Arthroplasty 28(1):139–146.e131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    McElroy MJ, Johnson AJ, Mont MA, Bonutti PM (2011) Short and standard stem prostheses are both viable options for minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis 69(Suppl 1):S68–S76Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schmidutz F, Beirer M, Weber P, Mazoochian F, Fottner A, Jansson V (2012) Biomechanical reconstruction of the hip: comparison between modular short-stem hip arthroplasty and conventional total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop 36(7):1341–1347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dorr LD, Faugere MC, Mackel AM, Gruen TA, Bognar B, Malluche HH (1993) Structural and cellular assessment of bone quality of proximal femur. Bone 14(3):231–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Harris WH (1969) Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg 51-A:737–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW (1988) Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol 15(12):1833–1840Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gruen T, McNeice G, Amstutz H (1979) “Modes of failure” of cemented stem-type femoral components: a radiographic analysis of loosening. Clin Orthop Relat Res 141:17–27Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zweymüller K (2007) Good results with an uncoated grit-blasted tapered straight stem at 10 years. Interactive Surgery 2(3):197–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bugbee WD, Culpepper WJ 2nd, Engh CA Jr, Engh CA Sr (1997) Long-term clinical consequences of stress-shielding after total hip arthroplasty without cement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 79(7):1007–1012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Brooker A, Bowerman J, Robinson R, Riley LJ (1973) Ectopic ossification following total hip replacement. Incidence and a method of classification. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 55(8):1629–1632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kjellberg M, Englund E, Sayed-Noor AS (2009) A new radiographic method of measuring femoral offset. The Sundsvall method. Hip Int 19(4):377–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Falez F, Casella F, Panegrossi G, Favetti F, Barresi C (2008) Perspectives on metaphyseal conservative stems. J Orthop Traumatol 9(1):49–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rometsch E, Bos P, Koes B (2012) Survival of short hip stems with a “modern”, trochanter-sparing design—a systematic literature review. Hip Int 22(4):344–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Burchard R, Braas S, Soost C, Graw JA, Schmitt J (2017) Bone preserving level of osteotomy in short-stem total hip arthroplasty does not influence stress shielding dimensions—a comparing finite elements analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 18:343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kim YH, Kim JS, Joo JH, Park JW (2012) A prospective short-term outcome study of a short metaphyseal fitting total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 27(1):88–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Muller M, Abdel MP, Wassilew GI, Duda G, Perka C (2015) Do post-operative changes of neck-shaft angle and femoral component anteversion have an effect on clinical outcome following uncemented total hip arthroplasty? Bone Joint J 97-b(12):1615–1622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nawabi DH, Do HT, Ruel A, Lurie B, Elpers ME, Wright T, Potter HG, Westrich GH (2016) Comprehensive analysis of a recalled modular total hip system and recommendations for management. J Bone Joint Surg Am 98(1):40–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kop AM, Swarts E (2009) Corrosion of a hip stem with a modular neck taper junction: a retrieval study of 16 cases. J Arthroplasty 24(7):1019–1023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ollivier M, Parratte S, Galland A, Lunebourg A, Argenson JN (2015) Are titanium-on-titanium TiAl6V4 modular necks safe in total hip arthroplasty for non-overweight patients? Results of a prospective series at a minimum follow-up of 7 years. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 25(7):1147–1152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Omlor GW, Kretzer JP, Reinders J, Streit MR, Bruckner T, Gotterbarm T, Aldinger PR, Merle C (2013) In vivo serum titanium ion levels following modular neck total hip arthroplasty—10 year results in 67 patients. Acta Biomater 9(4):6278–6282CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marco Schiraldi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Manuel Bondi
    • 2
  • Lodovico Renzi Brivio
    • 2
  1. 1.Azienda Ospedaliera Nazionale AlessandriaAlessandriaItaly
  2. 2.Azienda Ospedaliera Carlo PomaMantuaItaly

Personalised recommendations