Short Stem Navigation and Optimized Range of Motion

  • Djordje Lazovic

Abstract

The demand for less invasive procedures and bonesparing hip implants has led to the development of short stem prostheses. Various types of hip prostheses are called short stem, although they are based on different principles. Shortened conventional, short anatomic, double taper type, and neck implants rely on different fixation points in the femur and need to be reviewed individually. Short stem prostheses all have in common that they preserve the greater trochanter and part of the femoral neck, which leads to a curved implantation technique and is well suited for a minimally invasive procedure. The cementless fixed prostheses provide a high primary stability to allow immediate weight bearing (Eingartner 2007).

Keywords

Femoral Neck Short Stem Direct Anterior Approach Combine Anteversion Modular Neck 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Braun A, Sabah A (2009) Two-year results of a modular short hip stem prosthesis – a prospective study. Z Orthop Unfall 147:700–706PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Braun A, Lazovic D, Zigan R (2007) Modular short-stem prosthesis in total hip arthroplasty: implant positioning and the influence of navigation. Orthopedics 30:S148–152PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. D’Lima DD, Urquhart AG, Buehler KO, Walker RH, Colwell CW Jr (2000) The effect of the orientation of the acetabular and femoral components on the range of motion of the hip at different head-neck ratios. J Bone Joint Surg Am 82:315–321PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. D’Lima DD, Chen PC, Colwell CW Jr (2001) Optimizing acetabular component position to minimize impingement and reduce contact stress. J Bone Joint Surg Am 83:87–91PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Dorr LD, Malik A, Dastane M, Wan Z (2009) Combined anteversion technique for total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467:119–127PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Eingartner C (2007) Currents trends in total hip arthroplasty. Orthop Traumatol Rehabil 9:8–14Google Scholar
  7. Lazovic D, Zigan R (2006/7) Navigation of short-stem implants. Orthopedics 29:S 125–129. Erratum in: Orthopedics 30:327Google Scholar
  8. Lewinnek GE, Lewis JL, Tarr R, Compere CL, Zimmerman JR (1978) Dislocations after total hip replacement arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Am 60:217–220PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Matsushita A, Nakashima Y, Fujii M, Sato T, Iwamoto Y (2010) Modular necks improve the range of hip motion in cases with excessively anteverted or retroverted femurs in THA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468:3342–3347PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Milecki M, Kowalczewski J, Wielopolski A, Obrebski M, OkoŠ T, Marczak D (2008) Modular short-stem prosthesis in total hip arthroplasty – preliminary report (in Polish). Chir Narzadow Ruchu Ortop Pol 73:244–247PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Morrey BF (1989) Short-stemmed uncemented femoral component for primary hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 249:169–175PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Morrey BF, Adams RA, Kessler M (2000) A conservative femoral replacement for total hip arthroplasty. A prospective study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 82:952–958PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Müller M, Crucius D, Perka C, Tohtz S (2011) The association between the sagittal femoral stem alignment and the resulting femoral head centre in total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop (SICOT) 35:981–987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Renkawitz T, Haimerl M, Dohmen L, Gneiting S, Wegner M, Ehret N, Buchele C, Schubert M, Lechler P, Woerner M, Sendtner E, Schuster T, Ulm K, Springorum R, Grifka J (2011) Minimally invasive computer-navigated total hip arthroplasty, following the concept of femur first and combined anteversion: design of a blinded randomized controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 12:192PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Renkawitz T, Haimerl M, Dohmen L, Gneiting S, Lechler P, Woerner M, Springorum HR, Weber M, Sussmann P, Sendtner E, Grifka J (2012) The association between femoral tilt and impingement-free range-of-motion in total hip arthroplasty. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 13:65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Sariali E, Mouttet A, Pasquier G, Durante E (2009a) Three-dimensional hip anatomy in osteoarthritis. Analysis of the femoral offset. J Arthroplasty 24:990–997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sariali E, Mouttet A, Pasquier G, Durante E, Catone Y (2009b) Accuracy of reconstruction of the hip using computerised three-dimensional pre-operative planning and a cementless modular neck. J Bone Joint Surg Br 91:333–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Seki M, Yuasa N, Ohkuni K (1998) Analysis of optimal range of socket orientations in total hip arthroplasty with use of computer-aided design simulation. J Orthop Res 16:513–517PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sendtner E, Tibor S, Winkler R, Wörner M, Grifka J, Renkawitz T (2010) Stem torsion in total hip replacement. Acta Orthop 81:579–582PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Wassilew GI, Perka C, Koenig C, Janz V, Asbach P, Hasart O (2012) 3D CT analysis of combined cup and stem anteversion in cases of cup navigation in hip arthroplasty. Orthopedics 33:48–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Djordje Lazovic
    • 1
  1. 1.Specialist Clinic for Orthopedics and Orthopedic SurgeryPius HospitalOldenburg

Personalised recommendations