The learning curve following adoption of a novel short-stem prosthesis in total hip arthroplasty: implications on short-term patient outcomes

  • Jorge A. Padilla
  • Afshin A. Anoushiravani
  • James E. Feng
  • Ran SchwarzkopfEmail author
  • James Slover
  • Scott Marwin
Original Article • HIP - ARTHROPLASTY



Short-stem (SS) hip prostheses for total hip arthroplasty (THA) have gained popularity as surgeons strive to reproduce physiological stress distributions at the proximal femur. Additionally, as THA indications continue to target younger populations, preservation of femoral bone stock for potential revision surgeries is particularly appealing. However, little is known regarding the short-term complications of each variety of short stem during the learning curve period. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the short-term complications among the THA recipients with the use of a novel SS hip prosthesis.


A retrospective chart review was performed of all patients undergoing primary THA utilizing an Echo Bi-Metric Microplasty hip stem. Patient demographics, surgical factors, complications and quality outcomes were collected utilizing our institution’s data warehouse and verified by chart review.


In total, 182 SSs were implanted in 168 patients undergoing primary THA. Of these, 5 (2.9%) patients sustained a periprosthetic fracture. Two fractures occurred during the index hospital admission, and 3 occurred in the post-discharge period. Subset analysis demonstrated that 4 (80%) fractures had occurred during the initial learning curve period, within the first 30 surgical cases with a SS.


Short-stem hip prostheses are a safe alternative for THA. The results of the present study demonstrate a fracture incidence of 2.9% among patients. However, surgeons should remain cautious when utilizing new implant system and expect a learning curve. In this study, 80% of periprosthetic fractures following SS THA occurred within the first 30 cases for experienced arthroplasty-trained surgeons.


Short stem Dual taper Total hip arthroplasty Learning curve Outcomes Periprosthetic fracture 


Authors’ contribution

R.S., J.S., and M.S. conceived the study design. J.P., A.A., and J.F. investigated the learning curve associated with adopting a novel prosthetic design. J.P., A.A., and J.F. carried out the experiment, performed the analytic calculations and wrote the manuscript under the supervision of R.S., J.S., and M.S. All authors provided critical feedback and helped revise the final manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Jorge A. Padilla MD, Afshin A. Anoushiravani MD, and James E. Feng MD declare no conflicts of interest. Ran Schwarzkopf MD is a paid consultant for Smith & Nephew and Intellijoint; owns stocks in Intellijoint and Gauss Surgical; is a board members/committee for AAOS and AAHKS. James Slover MD has received research support from Biomet and is a board member/committee of AAHKS. Scott Marwin MD is a paid consultant for Zimmer and Integer Consulting.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed were in accordance with ethical standards. This study analyzed de-identified data and thus was exempted from human-subjects review by our Institutional Review Board (IRB).


  1. 1.
    Inacio MCS, Graves SE, Pratt NL, Roughead EE, Nemes S (2017) Increase in total joint arthroplasty projected from 2014 to 2046 in Australia: a conservative local model with international implications. Clin Orthop Relat Res 475(8):2130–2137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stulberg SD, Patel RM (2013) The short stem: promises and pitfalls. Bone Joint J 95B(11 Suppl A):57–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arnholdt J, Gilbert F, Blank M et al (2017) The Mayo conservative hip: complication analysis and management of the first 41 cases performed at a University level 1 department. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 18(1):250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sanders TL, Kremers HM, Schleck CD, Larson DR, Berry DJ (2017) Subsequent total joint arthroplasty after primary total knee or hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg 99:396–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Maradit Kremers H, Larson DR, Crowson CS et al (2015) Prevalence of total hip and knee replacement in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am 97(17):1386–1397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M (2007) Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89(4):780–785Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kurtz SM, Ong KL, Lau E, Bozic KJ (2014) Impact of the economic downturn on total joint replacement demand in the United States: updated projections to 2021. J Bone Jt Surg Am 96(8):624–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bieger R, Ignatius A, Decking R, Claes L, Reichel H, Dürselen L (2012) Primary stability and strain distribution of cementless hip stems as a function of implant design. Clin Biomech 27(2):158–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Arno S, Fetto J, Nguyen NQ et al (2012) Evaluation of femoral strains with cementless proximal-fill femoral implants of varied stem length. Clin Biomech 27(7):680–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kim YH, Kim JS, Cho SH (2001) Strain distribution in the proximal human femur. An in vitro comparison in the intact femur and after insertion of reference and experimental femoral stems. J Bone Joint Surg Br 83(2):295–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kim YH, Oh JH (2012) 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. Bone Joint J 94-B(6):774–781Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Østbyhaug PO, Klaksvik J, Romundstad P, Aamodt A (2009) An in vitro study of the strain distribution in human femora with anatomical and customised femoral stems. J Bone Joint Surg 91(5):676–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kim YH, Park JW, Kim JS, Kang JS (2014) Long-term results and bone remodeling after THA with a short, metaphyseal-fitting anatomic cementless stem. Clin Orthop Relat Res 472(3):943–950CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Patel RM, Lo WM, Cayo MA, Dolan MM, Stulberg SD (2013) Stable, dependable fixation of short-stem femoral implants at 5 years. Orthopedics 36:e301–e307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Salemyr M, Muren O, Ahl T et al (2015) Lower periprosthetic bone loss and good fixation of an ultra-short stem compared to a conventional stem in uncemented total hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop 86:659–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    von Lewinski G, Floerkemeier T (2015) 10-Year experience with short stem total hip arthroplasty. Orthopedics 38(3):S51–S56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wittenberg RH, Steffen R, Windhagen H, Bücking P, Wilcke A (2013) Five-year results of a cementless short-hip-stem prosthesis. Orthop Rev (Pavia) 5(1):4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Braun A, Sabah A (2009) Two-year results of a modular short hip stem prosthesis—a prospective study. Z Orthop Unfall 147(6):700–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wacha H, Domsel G, Herrmann E (2018) Long-term follow-up of 1217 consecutive short-stem total hip arthroplasty (THA): a retrospective single-center experience. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 44(3):1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lim SJ, Ko KR, Park CW, Moon YW, Park YS (2015) Robot-Assisted primary cementless total hip arthroplasty with a short femoral stem: a prospective randomized short-term outcome study. Comput Aided Surg 20(1):41–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
  22. 22.
    Khemka A, Mograby O, Lord SJ, Doyle Z, Al MM (2018) Total hip arthroplasty by the direct anterior approach using a neck-preserving stem: safety, efficacy and learning curve. Indian J Orthop 52(2):124–132Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Watts CD, Abdel MP, Lewallen DG, Berry DJ, Hanssen AD (2015) Increased risk of periprosthetic femur fractures associated with a unique cementless stem design. Clin Orthop Relat Res 473(6):2045–2053CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Abdel MP, Della Valle CJ (2017) Complications after primary total hip arthroplasty : a comprehensive clinical guide. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mollan RA, Watters PH, Steele R, McClelland CJ (1984) Failure of the femoral component in the Howse total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 190:142–147Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gill TJ, Sledge JB, Orler R, Ganz R (1999) Lateral insufficiency fractures of the femur caused by osteopenia and varus angulation: a complication of total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 14(8):982–987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Khalily C, Lester DK (2002) Results of a tapered cementless femoral stem implanted in varus. J Arthroplasty 17(4):463–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Loppini M, Grappiolo G (2018) Uncemented short stems in primary total hip arthroplasty: the state of the art. EFORT open Rev 3(5):149–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cella D, Yount S, Rothrock N et al (2007) The patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS): progress of an NIH roadmap cooperative group during its first two years. Med Care 45(5 Suppl 1):S3–S11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lombardi AV, Berend KR, Adams JB (2009) A short stem solution: through small portals. Orthopedics 32(9):663–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Healey P, Samanta J (2008) When does the ‘learning curve’ of innovative interventions become questionable practice? Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 36(3):253–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Morgenstern L (2005) Warning! dangerous curve ahead: the learning curve. Surg Innov 12(1):101–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
  34. 34.
    Hines JZ, Lurie P, Yu E, Wolfe S (2010) Left to their own devices: breakdowns in United States medical device premarket review. PLoS Med 7(7):e1000280CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jorge A. Padilla
    • 1
  • Afshin A. Anoushiravani
    • 2
  • James E. Feng
    • 1
  • Ran Schwarzkopf
    • 1
    Email author
  • James Slover
    • 1
  • Scott Marwin
    • 1
  1. 1.NYU Langone Health, Hospital for Joint DiseasesNYU Langone Orthopedic HospitalNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Albany Medical CollegeAlbany Medical CenterAlbanyUSA

Personalised recommendations