Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ten-year follow-up and clinical outcome of a metaphyseal anchoring short hip stem prosthesis: a retrospective single-centre analysis

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Short stems for total hip arthroplasty are an alternative to traditional conventional long stems. Short stems are designed to facilitate minimal-invasive surgery, improve bone-stock preservation, and mimic a physiological load distribution. However, there is little evidence of the long-term outcome of short stems. This study aims to analyze the ten year survival rates and clinical outcome of one specific metaphyseal short hip stem implant.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed the patient records of the patients who underwent a total hip arthroplasty with a monoblock partial collum sparing metaphyseal short hip stem prosthesis in 2008 and 2009 in our clinic. Patients were contacted, and clinical follow-up was recorded using the German version of the modified Harris Hip Score. Furthermore, complications, revision surgery, and post-operative radiographs were analyzed.

Results

Data from 339 primary implantations in 322 patients were retrieved. The mean follow-up was 10.6 years. Seven patients underwent a revision. The ten year survival rate with any revision surgery as the endpoint was 97.5%. The mean modified Harris Hip Score was 86 points (range 30 to 91 points). Five patients had an intraoperative fracture of the femur (1.6%). Two patients (0.6%) had a dislocation of the hip. The stem tip-to-cortex distance, measured in the anterior posterior view, was 2.6 mm (range 0 to 8.3 mm).

Conclusion

The ten year survival rate of our used monoblock partial collum sparing metaphyseal short hip stem implant is comparable to traditional stems for total hip arthroplasty.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Schnurr C, Schellen B, Dargel J, Beckmann J, Eysel P (2017) Low short-stem revision rates: 1–11 year results from 1888 total hip arthroplasties. J Arthroplasty 32(2):487–493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2016.08.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Learmonth ID, Young C, Rorabeck C (2007) The operation of the century: total hip replacement. Lancet 370:1508

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Zhang Z, Xing Q, Li J, Jiang Z, Pan Y, Hu Y, Wang L (2021) A comparison of short-stem prostheses and conventional stem prostheses in primary total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ann Transl Med 9(3):231. https://doi.org/10.21037/atm-20-4043

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Van Oldenrijk J, Molleman J, Klaver M et al (2014) Revision rate after short-stem total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review of 49 studies. Acta Orthop 85:250

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Kwak DK, Bang SH, Lee SJ, Park JH, Yoo JH (2021) Effect of stem position and length on bone-stem constructs after cementless hip arthroplasty. Bone Joint Res 10(4):250–258. https://doi.org/10.1302/2046-3758.104.BJR-2020-0043.R3

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Falez F, Casella F, Papalia M (2015) Current concepts, classification, and results in short stem hip arthroplasty. Orthopedics 38(3 Suppl):S6-13. https://doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20150215-50

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Steinbrück A, Grimberg AW, Elliott J, Melsheimer O, Jansson V (2021) Short versus conventional stem in cementless total hip arthroplasty : an evidence-based approach with registry data of mid-term survival. Orthopade 50(4):296–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00132-021-04083-y

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Wittenberg RH, Steffen R, Windhagen H et al (2013) Five-year results of a cementless short-hip-stem prosthesis. Orthop Rev (Pavia) 5(1):e4

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gruner A, Heller KD (2015) Patient selection for shorter femoral stems. Orthopedics 38(3 Suppl):S27-32. https://doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20150215-53

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Nilsdotter A, Bremander A (2011) Measures of hip function and symptoms: Harris Hip Score (HHS), Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS), Oxford Hip Score (OHS), Lequesne Index of Severity for Osteoarthritis of the Hip (LISOH), and American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS) Hip and Knee Questionnaire. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 63(Suppl 11):S200–S207. https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.20549

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Harris WH (1969) Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An endresult study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg 51(4):737–755

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ben-Shlomo Y, Blom A, Boulton C, Brittain R, Clark E, Dawson-Bowling S, Deere K, Esler C, Espinoza O, Evans J, Goldberg A, Gregson C, Howard P, Jameson S, Jennison T, Judge A, Lawrence S, Lenguerrand E, Marques E, McCormack V, Newell C, Pegg D, Penfold C, Porter M, Price A, Reed M, Rees J, Royall M, Sayers A, Stonadge J, Swanson M, Taylor D, Toms A, Watts A, Whitehouse M, Wilkinson M, Wilton T, Young E (2022) The National Joint Registry 19th Annual Report 2022. https://reports.njrcentre.org.uk/Portals/0/PDFdownloads/NJR%2019th%20Annual%20Report%202022.pdf. Accessed 27 Jan 2023

  13. Grimberg A, Lützner J, Melsheimer O, Morlock M, Steinbrück A (2022) The German arthroplasty registry: Annual report 2022. https://www.eprd.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Dateien/Publikationen/Berichte/AnnualReport2022-Web_2023–03–30_F.pdf. Accessed 27 Jan 2023

  14. Erivan R, Villatte G, Dartus J, Mertl P, Piriou P, Tracol P, Vernizeau M, Mulliez A, Puch JM, Girard J, Descamps S, Boisgard S, French Hip; Knee Society (2022) French Hip & Knee Society classification of short-stem hip prostheses: inter- and intra-observer reproducibility. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 108(1):103126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2021.103126

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Malahias MA, Purnachandra T, Chytas D, Kadu V, Karanikas D, Thorey F (2021) The clinical outcome of the Metha short hip stem: a systematic scoping review. Hip Int 31(1):24–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/1120700020903719

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Van der Linde MJ, Tonino AJ (1997) Nerve injury after hip arthroplasty. 5/600 cases after uncemented hip replacement, anterolateral approach versus direct lateral approach. Acta Orthop Scand 68(6):521–3. https://doi.org/10.3109/17453679708999018

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ezechieli M, Windhagen H, Matsubara M, Budde S, Wirries N, Sungu M (2022) A neck-preserving short stem better reconstructs the centre of rotation than straight stems: a computed tomography-based cadaver study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 142(7):1669–1680. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-021-03957-2

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Mihalko WM, Assaf D, Sungu M (2015) Reproducing the hip center with a femoral neck-retaining implant. Orthopedics 38(3 Suppl):S21–S26. https://doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20150215-52

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Chammaï Y, Brax M (2015) Medium-term comparison of results in obese patients and non-obese hip prostheses with Metha® short stem. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 25:503–508

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Destatis (2022) https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-Umwelt/Bevoelkerung/Sterbefaelle-Lebenserwartung/_inhalt.html#_n40ut8wm7. Accessed 24 Jan 2023

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Clinic for Orthopaedic Surgery, Herzogin Elisabeth Hospital, Leipzigerstraße 24, 38124, Braunschweig, Germany

    S. G. M. Weenders, A. Gruner & K. D. Heller

  2. Department of Orthopaedics, Trauma and Reconstructive Surgery, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany

    R. Merfort, J. Eschweiler & F. Hildebrand

Authors
  1. S. G. M. Weenders
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. R. Merfort
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. Eschweiler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. F. Hildebrand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. A. Gruner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. K. D. Heller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Data collection was performed by Andreas Gruner and Stefan Weenders. Material preparation and data analysis were performed by Stefan Weenders, Ricarda Merfort, Joerg Eschweiler, Frank Hildebrand, Andreas Gruner, and Karl-Dieter Heller. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Stefan Weenders, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. G. M. Weenders.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Approval was granted by the Ethics Committee of RWTH Aachen University (8 September 2020/reference number EK366/19).

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Weenders, S.G.M., Merfort, R., Eschweiler, J. et al. Ten-year follow-up and clinical outcome of a metaphyseal anchoring short hip stem prosthesis: a retrospective single-centre analysis. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 48, 419–426 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-023-05958-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-023-05958-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation