Stem Design - The Surgeon’s Perspective

  • Jonathan R. Howell
  • Mathew J.W. Hubble
  • Robin S.M. Ling


This chapter considers the principles behind the design of cemented femoral stems and concentrates on the issues that are important to the surgeon when selecting a stem for use in clinical practice. Two main issues are central to a surgeon’s choice of implant in hip replacement surgery: long-term function of the prosthesis and the versatility of the hip replacement system. The first part of the chapter examines how stem design may affect fixation of the stem within the femur and the long-term performance of a hip replacement. The second part of the chapter considers the needs of the surgeon in the operating room and how design of a cemented stem system may help the surgeon recreate each patient’s anatomy and thereby achieve the optimum outcome.


Femoral Component Composite Beam Femoral Stem Cement Mantle Stem Surface 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Ahmed AM et al. (1982) Transient and residual stresses and displacements in self curing bone cement — Part I: Characterization of relevant behaviour of bone cement. J Biomech Eng 104: 21–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alfaro-Adrian J et al. (1999) Cement migration after THR: a comparison of Charnley Elite and Exeter femoral stems using RSA. J Bone Joint Surg Br 81:130–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alfaro-Adrián J et al. (2001) Should total hip arthroplasty femoral components be designed to subside? A radiosterometric analysis study of the Charnley Elite and Exeter stems. J Arthroplasty 16(5):598–606PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Amstutz HC et al. (1992) Mechanism and clinical significance of wear debris-induced osteolysis. Clin Orthop 276:7–18PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Anthony PP et al. (1990) Localised endosteal bone lysis in relation to the femoral components of cemented total hip arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Br 72(6):971–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Arroyo NA, Stark CF (1987) The effects of textures, surface finish and precoating on the strength of bone cement/stem interfaces. Proceedings 13th Society for Biomaterials, New York: 218Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Aspenberg P, Van der Vis H (1998) Migration, particles and fluid pressure. A discussion of causes of prosthetic loosening. Clin Orthop 352:75–80PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Barb W et al. (1982) Intramedullary fixation of artificial hip joints with bone cement-precoated implants. I. Interfacial strengths. J Biomed Mater Res 16(4):447–58CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Berger RA et al. (1996) Hybrid total hip arthroplasty: Seven to ten year results. Clin Orthop 333:134–46PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Berme N, Paul JP (1979) Load actions transmitted by implants. J Biomed Eng 1:268–72PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brumby SA (1997) Migration, micromotion and debonding: The effect of the femoral stem surface finish and a collar. Transactions of Orthopaedic Research Society 22:353Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brumby SA et al. (1998) Radiographic and histologic analysis of cemented double tapered femoral stems. 335: 229–37Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bundy KJ, Penn RW (1987) The effect of surface preparation on metal/bone cement interfacial strength. J Biomed Mater Res 21(6):773–805CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Callaghan JJ et al. (1996) Primary hybrid total hip arthroplasty: An interim follow-up. Clin Orthop 333:118–25PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Callaghan JJ et al. (1997) Total hip arthroplasty in the young adult. Clin Orthop 1997 344:257–62PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Charnley J (1960) Anchorage of the femoral head prosthesis to the shaft of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Br 42:28–30PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chen CQ et al. (1999) Effect of metal surface topography on mechanical bonding at simulated total hip stem-cement interfaces. J Biomed Mater Res 48(4):440–6CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Collis DK, Mohler CG (1998) Loosening rates and bone lysis with rough finished and polished stems. Clin Orthop 355:113–22PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Crawford RW et al. (1998) An 8-10 year clinical review comparing matt and polished Exeter stems. Orthop Trans 22(1):40Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Crawford RW et al. (1999) Fluid migration around model cemented femoral components. J Bone Joint Surg Br 81SUPP I:82Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Crawford RW et al. (1999) Fluid flow around model femoral components of differing surface finishes — In vitro investigations. Acta Orthop Scand 70(6):589–95PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Crowninshield RD et al. (1980) The effect of femoral stem crosssectional geometry on cement stresses in total hip reconstruction. Clin Orthop 28;(146):71–7Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Crowninshield RD et al. (1998) Cemented femoral component surface finish mechanics. Clin Orthop 355:90–102PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dall DM et al. (1993) Fracture and loosening of Charnley femoral stems: comparison between first-generation and subsequent designs. J Bone Joint Surg Br 75:259–65PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Davies JP, Harris WH (1993) Strength of cement-metal interfaces in fatigue: comparison of smooth, porous and precoated specimens. Clin Mater 12(2):121–6CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Davies JP et al. (1996) Monitoring the integrity of the cementmetal interface of total joint components in vitro using acoustic emission and ultrasound. J Arthroplasty 11(5):594–601CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dowd JE (1998) Failure of total hip arthroplasty with a precoated prosthesis: 4-toll-year results. Clin Orthop 355:123–36PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fornasier VL, Cameron HU (1976) The femoral stem/cement interface in total hip replacement. Clin Orthop 116:248–52PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fowler J et al. (1988) Experience with Exeter Hip since 1970. Orthop Clinics N America 19:477–89Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gardiner RC, Hozack WJ (1994) Failure of the cement-bone interface. A consequence of strengthening the cement-prosthesis interface? J Bone Joint Surg Br 76(1):49–52PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Goldberg VM et al. (1996) Hybrid total hip arthroplasty: A 7-to 11-year follow-up. Clin Orthop 333:147–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gruen TA et al. (1979) ’Modes of Failure’ of cemented stem-type femoral components. Clin Orth 141:17–27Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Harrigan TP, Harris WH (1991) A three-dimensional non-linear finite element study of the effect of cement-prosthesis debonding in cemented femoral total hip components. J Biomech 24(11): 1047–58CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Harrigan TP et al. (1992) A finite element study of the initiation of failure of fixation in cemented femoral total hip components. J Orthop Res 10(1):134–44CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Harris WH (1992) Is it advantageous to strengthen the cementmetal interface and use a collar for cemented femoral components of total hip replacements? Clin Orthop Dec 285:67–72Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Howell JR et al. (2004) In vivo surface wear mechanisms of femoral components of cemented total hip arthroplasties: the influence of wear mechanism on clinical outcome. J Arthroplasty 19(1):88–101CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Howie DW et al. Loosening of matt and polished cemented femoral stems. J Bone Joint Surg Br 80(4):573–6Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Huiskes R (1993) Failed innovation in total hip replacement. Acta Orthop Scand 64:699–716PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Huiskes R et al. (1998) Migration, stem shape, and surface finish in cemented total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 355:103–12PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Jasty M et al. (1991) The initiation of failure in cemented femoral components of hip arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Br 73(4):551–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Jasty M et al. (1992) Acrylic fragmentation in total hip replacements and its biological consequences. Clin Orthop 1992;116–28Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Johnstone RC, Crowninshield RD (1983) Roentgenologic results of total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orth 181:92Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Karrholm J et al. (2000) Radiosteriometric evaluation of hip implant design and surface finish. Scientific exhibit 67th Annual Meeting of the AAOS, March 15-19, Orlando, USAGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Lewis G (1997) Properties of acrylic bone cement: state of the art review. J Biomed Mater Res 38(2):155–82CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Ling R (1992) The use of a collar and pre-coating on cemented femoral stems is unnecessary and detrimental. Clin Orth 285: 73–83Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ling RS, Lee AJ (1998) Porosity reduction in acrylic cement is clinically irrelevant. Clin Orthop 1998 355:249–53PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Mann KA et al. (1992) The effect of using a plasma-sprayed stemcement interface on stresses in a cemented femoral hip component. Trans Orthop Res Soc 17:317Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Meding JB (2000) Long-term survival of the T-28 versus the TR-28 cemented total hip arthroplasties. 15(7): 928–33Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Middleton RG et al. (1998). Effects of design changes on cemented tapered femoral stem fixation. Clin Orthop 1998 355:47–56PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Miles AW et al. (1990) The effect of the surface finish of the femoral component on load transmission in total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br (Suppl) 72:736Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Mjoberg B et al. (1984) Instability of total hip prostheses at rotational stress: a roentgen stereophotogrammetric study. Acta Orthop Scand 55:504–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Mohler CG et al. (1995) Early loosening of the femoral component at the cement-prosthesis interface after total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 77(9):1315–22PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Muller RT et al. (1997) The mechanism of loosening in cemented hip prostheses determined from long-term results. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 116:41–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Norman TL et al. (1996) Axisymmetric finite element analysis of a debonded total hip stem with an unsupported distal tip. J Biomech Eng 118:399–404PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Raab S et al. (1982) The quasistic and fatigue performance of the implant/bone-cement interface. J Biomed Mat Res 15:159Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Raab S et al. (1982) Thin film PMMA precoating for improved implant bone-cement fixation. J Biomed Mat Res 16:679Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Ramaniraka NA et al. (2000) The fixation of the cemented femoral component. Effects of stem stiffness, cement thickness and roughness of the cement-bone surface. J Bone Joint Surg Br 82(2):297–303CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Rickards R, Duncan CP (1986). The collar-calcar contact controversy. J Bone Joint Surg Br 68:851Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Schmalzried TP, Harris WH (1993) Hybrid total hip replacement: A 6.5 year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 75:608–15PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Shen G (1998) Femoral stem fixation: An engineering interpretation of the long-term outcome of Charnley and Exeter stems. J Bone Joint Surgery Br 80:754–56Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Sporer SM et al. (1999) The effects of surface roughness and polymethylmethacrylate precoating on the radiographic and clinical results of the Iowa hip prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 81:481–92PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Sutherland CJ et al. (1982) A ten-year follow-up of 100 consecutive Muller curved-stem total hip replacement arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Am 64:970–82PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Verdonschot N, Huiskes R (1996) Mechanical effects of stem cement interface characteristics in total hip replacement. Clin Orthop 329:326–36PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Verdonschot N, Huiskes R (1997). Cement debonding process of total hip arthroplasty stems. Clin Orthop 336:297–307PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Verdonschot N, Huiskes R (1998) Surface roughness of debonded straight-tapered stems in cemented THA reduces subsidence but not cement damage. Biomaterials 19:1773–9CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Verdonschot N et al. (1998) Effects of prosthesis surface roughness on the failure process of cemented hip implants after stemcement debonding. J Biomed Mater Res 42(4):554–9CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Wang JS (1999) Interface gap after implantation of a cemented femoral stem in pigs. Acta Orthop Scand 1999 70(3):234–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Warwick D et al. (1998) Revision of failed hemiarthroplasty for fractures at the hip. Int Orthop 22(3):165–8CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Williams HD et al. (2002) The Exeter universal cemented femoral component at 8 to 12 years. A study of the first 325 hips. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2002 84(3):324–34CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Woolfson ST, Haber DF (1996) Primary total hip replacement with insertion of an acetabular component without cement and a femoral component with cement. Follow-up study at an average of six years. J Bone Joint Surg Am 78:698–705Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Medizin Verlag Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jonathan R. Howell
    • 1
  • Mathew J.W. Hubble
    • 1
  • Robin S.M. Ling
    • 1
  1. 1.Princess Elizabeth Orthopaedic CentreRoyal Devon and Exeter HospitalExeter, DevonUK

Personalised recommendations