Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A comparative clinical outcome evaluation of smooth (10–13 year results) versus rough surface finish (5–8 year results) in an otherwise identically designed cemented titanium alloy stem

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

We retrospectively compared the influence of surface finish with respect to the long-term durability of a cemented titanium alloy stem of the same design but different surface finish.

Methods

From 1984 to 1994, the stem was made of a titanium-aluminum-vanadium alloy. A total of 201 patients with 220 smooth stems (mean follow-up 11 years and 4 months) out of 612 implanted between 1984 and 1987 and 319 patients with 343 rough stems (mean follow-up 5 years and 10 months) out of 812 implanted between 1991 and 1993 could be reviewed clinically and radiologically for comparison. The average age of the patients with the smooth stem was 58.1 years and of the patients with the rough stem, 62.2 years. In both groups, 35% of patients were male and 65% female.

Results

The mean Merle d'Aubigné hip score increased from 10.5 to 16.0 points in the smooth stem group and from 11.0 to 16.9 points in the rough stem group. The distribution of radiolucent lines, according to the zones of Gruen, was similar in both groups. The smooth stem required revision in 18 cases after a mean follow-up of 11 years and 4 months and the rough stem in 30 cases after a mean follow-up of 5 years and 10 months. The survival analysis (Kaplan-Meier) revealed 95.4% survival after 13 years for the smooth femoral component and 76.7% survival after 8 years for the rough femoral component.

Conclusions

The implantation of titanium alloy stems with a rough surface finish cannot be recommended because of its high aseptic loosening rate.

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.
Fig. 4.
Fig. 5.
Fig. 6.
Fig. 7.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bowditch M, Villar R (2001) Is titanium so bad? Medium-term outcome of cemented titanium stems. J. Bone Joint Surg Br 83:680–685

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. 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 55:1629–1632

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Callaghan JJ, Johnston RC (1997) Cemented arthroplasty yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Orthopedics 20:769–770

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Callaghan JJ, Sporer SM, Fornest E, Johnston RC, Goetz DD (1998) Does surface finish affect the long-term durability of the femoral component in cemented THA? Meeting Hip Society

  5. Collis DK, Mohler CG (1998) Loosening rates and bone lysis with rough finished and polished stems. Clin Orthop 355:113–122

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Eingartner C, Volkmann R, Kummel K, Weller S (1997) Low loosening rate of a cemented titanium straight shaft prosthesis in long term follow-up. Swiss Surg 3:49–54

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Eingartner C, Ihm A, Mauer F, Volkmann R, Weise K, Weller S (2002) Gute langfristige Nachuntersuchungsergebnisse einer zementierten Titan-Geradschaftprothese. Unfallchirurg 105:804–810

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Emerson RH, Head WC, Emerson CB, Rosenfeldt W, Higgins LL (2002) A comparison of cemented and cementless titanium femoral components used for primary total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 17:584–591

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Grigoris P, Hamblen D (1998) The control of new prosthetic implants. J Bone Joint Surg Br 80:941–943

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Gruen TA, McNeice GM, Amstutz HC (1979) 'Modes of failure' of cemented stem-type femoral components: a radiographic analysis of loosening. Clin Orthop 141:17–27

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hinrichs F, Boudriot U, Griss P (2000) 10-Jahres-Ergebnisse mit einem zementierten feingestrahlten Titan-Aluminum-Vanadium Hüftendoprothesenschaft. Z Orthop 138:52–56

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Howie DW, Middelton RG, Costi K (1998) Loosening of matt and polished cemented femoral stems. J Bone Joint Surg Br 80:573–576

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Huiskes R (1998) Migration, stem shape, and surface finish in cemented total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 355:103–112

    Google Scholar 

  14. Jacobson SA, Ivarson I, Djerf K, Wahlström O (1995) Stem loosening more common with ITH than Lubinus prosthesis. Acta Orthop Scand 66:425–431

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Jergesen HE, Karlen JW (2002) Clinical outcome in total hip arthroplasty using a cemented titanium femoral prosthesis. J Arthroplasty 17:592–599

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kelman GJ, Krakauer JD, Adams SA, Colwell CW (1994) Two- to five-year follow-up of 100 total hip arthroplasties using DF-80 implants. Orthop Rev 23:420–425

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Lichtinger TK, Schürmann N, Müller RT (2000) Frühlockerungen eines zementierten Hüftendoprothesenstiels aus Titan. Unfallchirurg 103:956–960

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ling RS (1992) Clinical experience with primary cemented total hip arthroplasty. Chir Organi Mov 77:373–381

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Massoud SN, Hunter JB, Holdsworth BJ, Wallace WA, Juliusson R (1997) Early femoral loosening in one design of cemented hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 79:603–609

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Maurer TB, Ochsner PE, Schwarzer G (2001) Increased loosening of cemented straight stem prostheses made from titanium alloys. An analysis and comparison with prostheses made of cobalt-chromium-nickel ally. Int Orthop 25:77–80

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Meding JB, Herbst SA, Keating EM, Faris PM, Ritter MA (1997) Radiographic analysis of a cemented titanium alloy femoral component. Clin Orthop 334:184–189

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Merle d`Aubigné R, Postel M (1954) Functional results of arthroplasty with acrylic prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 36:451–475

    Google Scholar 

  23. Middleton RG, Howie DW, Costi K, Sharpe P (1998) Effects of design changes on cemented tapered femoral stem fixation. Clin Orthop 355:47–56

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Rader CP, Hendrich C, Löw S, Walther M, Eulert J (2000) 5- bis 8-Jahres Ergebnisse mit der Müller-Geradschaftprothese (zementierter TiAlNb-Schaft). Unfallchirurg 103:846–852

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Robinson RP, Lovell TP, Green TM, Bailey GA (1989) Early femoral component loosening in DF-80 total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 4:55–64

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Rockborn P, Olsson SS (1993) Loosening and bone resorption in Exeter hip arthroplasties. Review at a minimum of five years J Bone Joint Surg Br 75:865–868

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Sarmiento A, Gruen TA (1985) Radiographic analysis of a low-modulus titanium-alloy femoral total hip component. J Bone Joint Surg Am 67:48–56

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Schöll E, Eggli S, Ganz R (2000) Osteolysis in cemented titanium alloy hip prosthesis. J Arthroplasty 15:570–575

    Google Scholar 

  29. Semlitsch M, Windler M, Streicher RM (1991) Eignung von Titanlegierungen für zementierte Hüftprothesenschäfte. Die Hüftendoprothetik, Vol 2. Stahl. Verlag Ecomed, Landsberg

  30. Sporer SM, Callaghan JJ, Olejniczak JP, Goetz DD, Johnston RC (1998) Hybrid total hip arthroplasty in patients under the age of fifty: a five- to ten-year follow-up. J Arthroplasty 13:485–491

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Tompkins GS, Lachiewicz PF, DeMasi R (1994) A prospective study of a titanium femoral component for cemented total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 9:623–630

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Unwin AJ (1993) Early failure of titanium alloy femoral components: a quantitative radiological analysis of osteolytic and granulomatous change. J R Soc Med 86:460–463

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Verdonschot N (1996) Subsidence of THA stems due to acrylic cement creep is extremely sensitive to interface friction. J Biomech 29:1569–1575

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Verdonschot N (1997) Acrylic cement creeps but does not allow much subsidence of femoral stems. J Bone Joint Surg Br 79:665–669

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Verdonschot N, Tanck E, Huiskes R (1998) Effects of prosthesis surface roughness on the failure process of cemented hip implants after stem-cement debounding. J Biomed Mater Res 42:554–559

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Wagner M, Wagner H (1997) Vergleich der Ergebnisse von zementierten Hüftendoprothesenschäften aus Titan und Kobalt-Chrom-Legierungen. Orthop Praxis 33:589–593

    Google Scholar 

  37. Willert HG, Brobäck LG, Buchhorn GH, Jensen PH, Köster G, Lang I, Ochsner P, Schenk R (1996) Crevice corrosion of cemented titanium alloy stems in total hip replacements. Clin Orthop 333:51–75

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Witt JD, Swann M (1991) Metal wear and tissue response in failed titanium alloy THR. J Bone Joint Surg Br 73:559–563

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Philipps University of Marburg, Baldingerstrasse, 35033, Marburg, Germany

    F. Hinrichs, M. Kuhl, U. Boudriot & P. Griss

Authors
  1. F. Hinrichs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Kuhl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. U. Boudriot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. P. Griss
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to F. Hinrichs.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hinrichs, F., Kuhl, M., Boudriot, U. et al. A comparative clinical outcome evaluation of smooth (10–13 year results) versus rough surface finish (5–8 year results) in an otherwise identically designed cemented titanium alloy stem. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 123, 268–272 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-003-0515-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-003-0515-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation