Advertisement

Prospective, comparative study of cemented, smooth-surfaced titanium stems and polish-surfaced, stainless steel stems at a minimum follow-up of 10 years

  • Hiroshi FujitaEmail author
  • Hiroaki Hara
  • Hideto Harada
  • Masanao Kataoka
  • Tomohiro Tominaga
  • Ryuuichi Nishimura
Original Article • HIP - ARTHROPLASTY
  • 10 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Excellent results have been reported with cemented total hip arthroplasty (THA) using both smooth-surfaced and polished-surfaced stems. However, the superiority of polished-surfaced over smooth-surfaced in cemented THA, or vice versa, is still debated.

Materials and methods

Forty-six smooth-surfaced, triple-tapered, titanium-alloy stem (Group C) and 46 Exeter stems (Group T) have been fixed consecutively at different periods at our institute and prospectively evaluated clinically and radiologically. The area and location demonstrating cortical hypertrophy (CH) was measured in the serial radiograph and compared.

Results

The mean postoperative follow-up period was 12.4 years for group C and 10.8 years for group T. No significant difference of clinical results was found between both groups. CH was observed in 8 hips (18.6%) of group C and in 7 hips (17.1%) of group T (NS). Among the hips in which distribution of CH was observed at the medial side, a significantly low proportion belonged to group C (adjusted standardized residual = − 2.3) and a significantly high proportion belonged to group T (adjusted standardized residual = 2.3). The largest area of CH found in each group was 166.1 mm2 in group C and 227.6 mm2 in group T (NS). The peak location of CH was 100.4% in group C and 84.3% in group T (p = 0.02).

Conclusion

Medium-term results of both stems were excellent. CH was observed medially and proximally in group T and laterally and distally in group C.

Keywords

Total hip arthroplasty Bone cements Titanium Stainless steel Hydroxyapatite Hypertrophy 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Iida H, Matsusue Y, Kawanabe K, Okumura H, Yamamuro T, Nakamura T (2000) Cemented total hip arthroplasty with acetabular bone graft for developmental dysplasia. Long-term results and survivorship analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 82(2):176–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Carrington NC, Sierra RJ, Gie GA, Hubble MJ, Timperley AJ, Howell JR (2009) The Exeter Universal cemented femoral component at 15 to 17 years: an update on the first 325 hips. J Bone Joint Surg Br 91(6):730–737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Oonishi H, Kadoya Y, Iwaki H, Kin N (2001) Total hip arthroplasty with a modified cementing technique using hydroxyapatite granules. J Arthroplasty 16:784–789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Oonishi H, Ohashi H, Oonishi H Jr, Kim SC (2008) THA with hydroxyapatite granules at cement-bone interface: 15- to 20-year results. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466(2):373–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Oonishi H, Ohashi H, Kawahara I (2016) Total hip arthroplasty around the inception of the interface bioactive bone cement technique. Clin Orthop Surg 8(3):237–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fujita H, Katayama N, Iwase T, Otsuka H (2012) Multi-center study of use of the Exeter stem in Japan: evaluation of 1000 primary THA. J Orthop Sci 17:370–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hook S, Moulder E, Yates PJ, Burston BJ, Whitley E, Bannister GC (2006) The Exeter Universal stem: a minimum ten-year review from an independent centre. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88(12):1584–1590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shen G (1998) Femoral stem fixation. An engineering interpretation of the long-term outcome of Charnley and Exeter stems. J Bone Joint Surg Br 80(5):754–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Scheerlinck T, Casteleyn PP (2006) The design features of cemented femoral hip implants. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88(11):1409–1418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    McCalden RW, Charron KD, Yuan X, Bourne RB, Naudie DD, MacDonald SJ (2010) Randomised controlled trial comparing early migration of two collarless polished cemented stems using radiostereometric analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 92(7):935–940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Abadie P, Lebel B, Pineau V, Burdin G, Vielpeau C (2010) Cemented total hip stem design influence on adaptative cortical thickness and femoral morphology. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 96(2):104–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Crowe JF, Mani VJ, Ranawat CS (1979) Total hip replacement in congenital dislocation and dysplasia of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 61-A:15–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dall D (1986) Exposure of the hip by anterior osteotomy of the greater trochanter. A modified anterolateral approach. J Bone Joint Surg 68B:382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    d’Aubigne RM, Postel M (1954) Functional results of hip arthroplasty with acrylic prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 36-A(3):451–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Barrack RL, Mulroy RD Jr, Harris WH (1992) Improved cementing techniques and femoral component loosening in young patients with hip arthroplasty. A 12-year radiographic review. J Bone Joint Surg Br 74(3):385–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gruen TA, McNeice GM, Amstutz HC (1979) “Modes of failure” of cemented stem-type femoral components. Clin Orthop 141:17Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kwong LM, Jasty M, Mulroy RD, Maloney WJ, Bragdon C, Harris WH (1992) The histology of the radiolucent line. J Bone Joint Surg Br 74(1):67–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Harris WH, McCarthy JC Jr, O’Neill DA (1982) Femoral component loosening using contemporary techniques of femoral cement fixation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 64(7):1063–1067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fowler JL, Gie GA, Lee AJC, Ling RSM (1988) Experience with the Exeter total hip replacement since 1970. Orthop Clin North Am 19:477–489PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Brooker AF, Bowerman JW, Robinson RA, Riley LH Jr (1973) Ectopic ossification following total hip replacement. Incidence and a method of classification. J Bone Joint Surg Am 55(8):1629–1632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kaplan EL, Meier P (1958) Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc 53:457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Murray DW, Gulati A, Gill HS (2013) Ten-year RSA-measured migration of the Exeter femoral stem. Bone Joint J 95-B(5):605–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shanbhogue VV, Brixen K, Hansen S (2016) Age- and sex-related changes in bone microarchitecture and estimated strength: a three-year prospective study using HRpQCT. J Bone Miner Res 31(8):1541–1549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Black J, Hastings G (eds) (1998) Handbook of biomaterial properties. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Eftekhar NS (1993) Biomechanics: fixation and loosening. In: Eftekhar NS (ed) Total hip arthroplasty. Mosby-Year Book, Inc., St. Louis, pp 223–314Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fujita H, Ido K, Matsuda Y, Iida H, Oka M, Kitamura Y, Nakamura T (2000) Evaluation of bioactive bone cement in canine total hip arthroplasty. J Biomed Mater Res 49(2):273–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wolff J (2010) (1873) The classic: on the theory of fracture healing. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468(4):1052–1055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Oonishi H, Kadoya Y, Iwaki H, Kin N (2000) Hydroxyapatite granules interposed at bone-cement interface in total hip replacements: histological study of retrieved specimens. J Biomed Mater Res (Appl Biomater) 53:174–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hiroshi Fujita
    • 1
    Email author
  • Hiroaki Hara
    • 2
  • Hideto Harada
    • 1
  • Masanao Kataoka
    • 1
  • Tomohiro Tominaga
    • 1
  • Ryuuichi Nishimura
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Institute for Joint ReplacementKyoto Katsura HospitalKyotoJapan
  2. 2.Department of RehabilitationKyoto Katsura HospitalKyotoJapan

Personalised recommendations