Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

, Volume 472, Issue 3, pp 943–950

Long-term Results and Bone Remodeling After THA With a Short, Metaphyseal-fitting Anatomic Cementless Stem

  • Young-Hoo Kim
  • Jang-Won Park
  • Jun-Shik Kim
  • Jun-Seok Kang
Clinical Research

Abstract

Background

Long-term results of standard total hip arthroplasty (THA) in young patients were not optimal. There are a number of reported disadvantages to longer cementless stems in THA including thigh pain and proximal stress shielding. However, it is unknown whether a short, metaphyseal-fitting anatomic stem without diaphyseal fixation, which represents a possible alternative, will maintain fixation over the longer term.

Question/purposes

We therefore evaluated long-term (1) clinical results using validated scoring instruments; (2) osseointegration and bone remodeling; (3) complications; and (4) rates of revision and osteolysis in patients younger than 65 years who underwent THA with a short, metaphyseal-fitting anatomic cementless stem.

Methods

We reviewed 500 patients (630 hips) younger than 65 years (mean age at surgery, 52.7 years) who underwent THA with the Immediate Postoperative Stability stem (IPS; DePuy, Leeds, UK) by one surgeon (Y-HK) from January 1995 to March 2002. Demographic data, Harris hip score, WOMAC score, UCLA activity score, and radiographic data were recorded. All patients underwent dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scanning of the acetabulum and proximal femur at 2 weeks after the operation and at final followup to determine stress shielding. Thigh pain was specifically investigated and scored by patients on a visual analog scale. Other complications were recorded. We determined component survival rates at 15 years using revision and aseptic loosening as end points. Minimum followup was 11 years (mean, 15.8 years; range, 11–18 years).

Results

The clinical and functional results improved significantly for the Harris hip score, WOMAC, and UCLA activity scores (p < 0.001). At latest followup, mean Harris hip, WOMAC, and UCLA activity scores were 94 (range, 71–100), 15 (range, 5–29), and 7.9 (range, 6–9) points, respectively. All hips had osseous integration of the acetabular and femoral components. No patients had thigh pain. Four hips (0.6%) had deep infection and four (0.6%) had a recurrent dislocation. No patients had Grade 3 stress shielding. Fifteen-year survival rates were 98.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95–1.00) for the acetabular component and 99.4% (95% CI, 0.97–1.00) for the femoral component with revision as the end point and 100% (95% CI, 0.98–1.00) for both components with aseptic loosening as the end point.

Conclusions

The short, metaphyseal-fitting anatomic cementless femoral stem provided stable fixation without relying on diaphyseal fixation in younger patients, suggesting metaphyseal fitting alone is sufficient in young patients who have good bone quality. Because we observed no thigh pain and little stress shielding in our patients, modifying the distal stem design as is done with this implant might be advantageous, but this would need to be determined in future comparative studies.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, therapeutic study. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

References

  1. 1.
    Albanese CV, Rendine M, Depalma F, Impagliazzo A, Falez F, Postac Chiri F, Villani C, Passariello R, Santori FS. Bone remodeling in THA: a comparative DXA scan study between conventional implants and a new stemless femoral component. A preliminary report. Hip Int. 2006;16(Suppl 3):S9–S15.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aldinger PR, Breusch SJ, Lukoschek M, Mau H, Ewerbeck V, Thomsen M. A ten-to 15-year follow-up of the Spotorno stem. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2003;85:209–214.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW. 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. 1988;15:1833–1840.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Börlin N, Thien T, Kärrholm J. The precision of radiostereometric measurements. J Biomech. 2002;35:69–79.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bourne RB, Rorabeck CH, Ghazal ME, Lee MH. Pain in the thigh following total hip replacement with a porous-coated anatomic prosthesis for osteoarthrosis; a five-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1994;76:1464–1470.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brooker AF, Bowerman JW, Robinson RA, Riley LH Jr. Ectopic ossification following total hip replacement: incidence and method of classification. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1973;55:1629–1632.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brown TE, Larson B, Shen F, Moskal JT. Thigh pain after cementless total hip arthroplasty: evaluation and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2002;10:385–392.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    DeLee JG, Charnley J. Radiological demarcation of cemented sockets in total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1976;121:20–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dorr LD. Total hip replacement using APR system. Tech Orthop. 1986;1:22–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dorr LD, Wan Z, Gruen T. Functional results in total hip replacement in patients 65 years and older. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1997;336:143–151.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ellison B, Berend KR, Lombardi AV Jr, Mallory TH. Tapered titanium porous plasma-sprayed femoral component in patients aged 40 years and younger. J Arthroplasty. 2006;21(Suppl 2):32–37.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Engh CA, Bobyn JD, Glassman AH. Porous-coated hip replacement: the factors governing bone ingrowth, stress shielding, and clinical results. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1987;69:45–55.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ficat RP, Arlet J. Treatment of Bone Ischemia and Necrosis of Bone. Baltimore, MD, USA: Williams & Wilkins; 1980:171–182.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Glassman AH, Bobyn JD, Tanzer M. New femoral designs: do they influence stress shielding? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;453:64–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gruen TA, McNeice GM, Anstutz HC. ‘Modes of failure’ of cemented stem-type femoral components: a radiographic analysis of loosening. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1979;141:17–27.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Harris WH. 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 Am. 1969;51:737–755.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kaplan EL, Meier P. Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observation. J Am Stat Assoc. 1958;53:457–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kim YH. Cementless total hip arhtorplasty with a close proximal fit and short tapered distal stem (third generation) prosthesis. J Arthroplasty. 2002;17:841–850.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kim YH. The results of a proximally-coated cementless femoral component in total hip replacement: a five- to 12-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90:299–305.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kim YH, Choi YW, Kim JS. Comparison of bone mineral density changes around short, metaphyseal-fitting and conventional cementless anatomic femoral components. J Arthroplasty. 2011;26:931–940.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kim YH, Kim JS. Histologic analysis of acetabular and proximal femoral bone in patients with osteonecrosis of the femoral head. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86:2471–2474.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kim YH, Kim JS, Joo JH, Park JW. A prospective short-term outcome study of a short metaphyseal fitting total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27:88–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kim YH, Kim JS, Oh SH, Kim JM. Comparison of porous-coated titanium femoral stem with and without hydroxyapatite coating. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85:1682–1628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kim YH, Kim JS, Park JW, Joo JH. Total hip replacement with a short metaphyseal-fitting anatomical cementless femoral component in patients aged 70 years or older. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011;93:587–592.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kim YH, Kim VE. Uncemented porous-coated anatomic total hip replacement. Results at six years in a consecutive series. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1993;75:6–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kim YH, Oh JH. A comparison of a conventional versus a short, anatomical metaphyseal-fitting cementless femoral stem in the treatment of patients with a fracture of the femoral neck. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012;94:774–781.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kim YH, Park JW, Kim JS. Is diaphyseal stem fixation necessary for primary total hip arthroplasty in patients with osteoporotic bone (Class C bone)? J Arthroplasty. 2013;28:139–146.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kim YH, Park JW, Patel C, Kim DY. Polyethylene wear and osteolysis after cementless total hip arthroplasty with alumina-on-highly cross-linked polyethylene bearings in patients younger than thirty years of age. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95:1088–1093.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Leali A, Fetto JF. Preservation of femoral bone mass after total hip replacements with a lateral flare stem. Int Orthop. 2004;28:151–154.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mallory TH, Lombardi AV Jr, Leith JR, Fujita H, Hartman JF, Capps SG, Kefauver CA, Adams JB, Vorys GC. Minimal 10-year results of a tapered cementless femoral component in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2001;16(Suppl 1):49–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    McLaughlin JR, Lee KR. Uncemented total hip arthroplasty with a tapered femoral component: a 22-to-26 year follow-up study. Orthopedics. 2010;33:1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Morrey BF. Short-stemmed uncemented femoral component for primary hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989;249:169–175.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Østbyhaug PO, Klaksvik J, Romundstad P, Aamodt A. An in vitro study of the strain distribution in human femora with anatomical and customized femoral stems. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009;91:676–682.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Patel RM, Smith MC, Woodward CC, Stulberg SD. Stable fixation of short-stem femoral implants in patients 70 years and older. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470:442–449.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Petsatodes GE, Christoforides JE, Papadopoulos PP, Christodoulou AG, Karataglis D, Pournaras JD. Primary total hip arthroplasty with the Autophor 900-S fully porous coated stem in young patients seven to seventeen years of follow-up. J Arthroplasty. 2005;20:436–442.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Pieringer H, Labek G, Auersperg V, Böhler N. Cementless total hip arthroplasty in patients older than 80 years of age. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2003;85:641–645.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Restrepo C, Lettick T, Roberts N, Parvizi J, Hozack WJ. Uncemented total hip arthroplasty in patients less than twenty-years. Acta Orthop Belg. 2008;74:615–622.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Santori FS, Santori N. Mid-term results of a custom-made short proximal loading femoral component. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010;92:1231–1237.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Stulberg SD, Dolan M. The short stem: a thinking man’s alternative to surface replacement. Orthopedics. 2008;31:885–886.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sumner DR, Galante JO. Determinants of stress shielding: design versus materials versus interface. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1992;274:202–212.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Teloken MA, Bissett G, Hozack WJ, Sharkey PF, Rothman RH. Ten to fifteen-year follow-up after total hip arthroplasty with a tapered cobalt-chromium femoral component (Tri-Lock) inserted without cement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84:2140–2144.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Walker PS, Culligan S, Hua J, Muirhead-Allwood SK, Bentley G. The effect of a lateral flare feature on uncemented hip stems. Hip Int. 1999;9:71–80.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Westphal FM, Bishop N, Honl M, Hille E, Püschel K, Morlock MM. Migration and cyclic motion of a new short-stemmed hip prosthesis: a biomechanical in vitro study. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2006;21:834–840.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Zahiri CA, Schmalzried TP, Szuszczewicz ES, Amstutz HC. Assessing activity in joint replacement patients. J Arthroplasty. 1998;13:890–895.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Young-Hoo Kim
    • 1
  • Jang-Won Park
    • 1
  • Jun-Shik Kim
    • 1
  • Jun-Seok Kang
    • 1
  1. 1.The Joint Replacement Center, Ewha Womans University School of MedicineMokDong HospitalSeoulRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations