Advertisement

Outcome with the MS-30 Stem

  • Erwin W. Morscher
  • Martin Clauss
  • G. Grappiolo

Summary

The reported follow-up studies show that excellent results with a 10-year survivorship of the MS-30 stem of 100% can be achieved. The outcome of a THR not only depends on the design of the implant but also on the conditions of its surface and the material. Last but not least the operative, and especially the cementing technique play a decisive role.

Keywords

Femoral Component Aseptic Loosening Femoral Stem Cement Mantle Straight Stem 
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. 1.
    Acklin YP, Berli BJ, Frick W, Elke R, Morscher EW. Nine-year results of Müller cemented titanium straight stems in total hip replacement. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2001;121:391–398CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alfaro-Adrián J, Gill HS, Murray DW. Cement migration after THR. A comparison of Charnley elite and Exeter femoral stems using RSA. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 1999;81-B:130–134Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alfaro-Adrián J, Gill HS, Murray DW. Should total hip arthroplasty femoral components be designed to subside? A radiostereometric analysis study of the Charnley elite and Exeter stems. J Arthroplasty 2001;16:598–606PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berli B, Elke R, Morscher EW. The cemented MS-30 stem in total hip replacement, matte versus polished surface: minimum of five years of clinical and radiographic results of a prospective study. In: Winters GL, Nutt MJ (eds) Stainless steels for medical and surgical applications. ASTM STP 1438, 2003:249–261Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Breusch SJ, Lukoschek M, Kreutzer J, Brocai D, Gruen TA. Dependency of cement mantle thickness on femoral stem design and centralizer. J. Arthroplasty 2001: 16-5: 648–57Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brooker AF, Bowerman JW, Robinson RA, Riley LH Jr. Ectopic ossification following total hip replacement. Incidence and a method of classification. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 1973;55-A:1629–1632Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Draenert K, Draenert Y. Die Adaptation des Knochens an die Deformation durch Implantate — Strain — Adaptive Bone Remodelling. Art & Science München, 1992Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ebramzadeh E, Sarmiento A, McKellop HA, Llinas A, Gogan W. the cement mantle in total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 1994;76-A:77–87Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Estok DM, Orr TE, Harris WH. Factors affecting cement strains near the tip of a cemented femoral component. J Arthroplasty 1997;12:40–4CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fowler JL, Gie GA, Lee AJ, Ling RS: Experience with the Exeter total hip replacement since 1970. Orthop Clin North Am 1988: 19-3:477–89Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Freeman MAR. Why resect the neck? J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 1986;68-B:346–349Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gruen TA, McNeice GM, Amstutz HC. Modes of failure of cemented stem-type femoral components. A radiographic analysis of loosening. Clin Orthop 1979;141:17–2PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Harris WH, McCarthy JC, O’Neill DA. Femoral component loosening using contemporary techniques of femoral cement fixation. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 1986;68-A:1064–1066Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Havelin, Engesaeter LB, Espehaug B, Furnes O, Lie SA, Vollset SE. The Norvegian Arthroplasty Register: 11 years and 73’000 arthroplasties. Acta Orthop. Scand. 2000, 71: 337–353CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hinrichs F, Kuhl M, Boudriot U, Griss P. 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 2003;123:268–272CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Howie DW, Middleton RG, Costi K. Loosening of matte and polished cemented femoral stems. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 1998;80-B:573–576Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Iwase T, Wingstrand I, Persson BM, Kesteris U, Hasegawa Y, Wingstrand H. The ScanHip total hip arthroplasty: radiographic assessment of 72 hips after 10 years. Acta Orthop Scand 2002;73:54–59CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Johnston RC, Fitzgerald RH, Harris WH, Poss R, Müller M.E, Sledge CB. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 1990;72-A:161–168Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Joshi RP, Eftekhar NS, McMahon DJ, Nercessian OA. Osteolysis after Charnley primary low-friction arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 1998;80-B:585–590Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kelly AJ, Lee MB, Wong NS, Smith EJ, Learmonth ID. Poor reproducibility in radiographic grading of femoral cementing technique in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 1996;11:525–528CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kiss J, Murray DW, Turner-Smith AR, Bithell J, Bullstrode CJ. Migration of cemented femoral components after THR: Roentgen stereophotogrammetry analysis. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 1996;78-B:796–801Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lee AJC, Perkins RD, Ling RSM. Time dependent properties of polymethylmethacrylate bone cement. In: John O (ed) In implant bone interface. Springer New York, 1990:85–90Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ling RS. The use of a collar and precoating in cemented femoral stems is unnecessary and detrimental. Clin Orthop 1992;285:73–83PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Malchau H, Herberts P. Prognosis of total hip replacement. Revision and re-revision rate in THR: A revision risk study of 148, 359 primary operations. Scientific exhibition, 65th Annual Meeting AAOS, February 19–23, 1998, New Orleans/USAGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Malchau, Sodermann P, Herberts P. Swedish Hip Registry: Results with 20 Year Follow-up with Validation Clinically and Radiographically. 2000 Orlando, Presented at the 67th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic SurgeonsGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Maloney WJ: Natiional Joint Replacement Registries: has the time come? J Bone Joint Surg Br 1997, 79-2: 254–7Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Markolf KL, Amstutz HC. A comparative experimental study of stresses in femoral total hip replacement components: the effects of prosthesis orientation and acrylic fixation. J Biomech, 1976;9:73–79CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Miller J, Johnson A. Advances in cementing techniques in total hip arthroplasty. In: Stilwell WT (ed) The art of total hip arthroplasty, Grunde & Stratton, 1987:277–292Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Morscher EW, Wirz D. Current state of cement fixation in THR. Acta Orthop Belg 2002;68:1–12PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Morscher EW, Spotorno L, Mumenthaler A, Frick W. The cemented MS-30 stem. In: Morscher EW (ed) Endoprosthetics. Springer Berlin, New York, 1995:211–219Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mulroy RD, Harris WH: The effect of improved cementing techniques on component loosening in total hip replacement. A 11 year radiographic review. J Bone Surg Br 1990, 72-5: 757–60Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    National Institute of Health. Conventions in total hip arthroplasty. Ministry of Health, London, GB 1998Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Normann TL, Thyagarajan G, Saligrama VC, Gruen TA, Blaha JD. Stem surface roughness alters creep induced subsidence and ≫taper-lock≪ in a cemented femoral hip prosthesis. J Biomech 2001;34:1325–1333Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Nunn D, Freeman MAR, Tanner KE, Bonfield W. Torsinal stability of the femoral component of hip arthroplasty. Response to an anteriorly applied load. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 1989;71-B:452–455Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Räber DA, Czaja S, Morscher EW. Fifteen-year results of the Müller CoCrNiMo straight stem. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2001;121:38–42PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Søballe K, Toksvig-Larson S, Gelinek J. Migration of hydroxyapatite coated femoral prostheses: a roentgen stereophotogrammetric study. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 1993; 75-B:681–687Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wilson-MacDonald J, Morscher E. Comparison between straight-and curved-stem Müller femoral prostheses; 5-to 10-year results of 545 total hip replacements. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 1989;109:14–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wirz D, Zurfluh B, Goepfert B et al. Results of in vitro studies about the mechanism of wear in the stem-cement interface of THR. In: Winters GL, Nutt MJ (ed) Stainless steels for medical and surgical applications. ASTM STP 1438, 2003:222–234Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wroblewski BM, Siney PD, Fleming PA, Bobak P. The calcar femorale in cemented stem fixation in total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 1979;82-B:842–845Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Medizin Verlag Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erwin W. Morscher
    • 1
    • 2
  • Martin Clauss
    • 3
  • G. Grappiolo
    • 4
  1. 1.Dept. of Orthopaedic SurgeryUniversity of BaselSwitzerland
  2. 2.Laboratory for Orthopaedic Biomechanics (LOB)Felix-Platter-SpitalBaselSwitzerland
  3. 3.Kantonsspital LiestalLiestalSwitzerland
  4. 4.Hip Surgery UnitSanta Corona HospitalPietra Ligure (SV)Italy

Personalised recommendations