Advertisement

Stem length in primary cementless total hip arthroplasty: Does it make a difference in bone remodeling?

  • Ahmed M. SamyEmail author
  • Ahmad El-Tantawy
Original Article • HIP - ARTHROPLASTY
  • 30 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Stem design is usually accused for proximal femoral remodeling following total hip arthroplasty (THA). The aim of this prospective study was to compare the in vivo changes in bone mineral density (BMD) of the proximal femur after implantation of cementless THA with two length alternative stems.

Methods

Between May 2011 and March 2014, 50 patients, who met our selection criteria and received cementless THA, randomized into two groups. Group A received cementless standard femoral stems, while group B received short stems. Harris Hip Score (HHS) and visual analog scale (VAS) were used for clinical assessment. Stem and cup positions and stability were radiologically evaluated. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry was used to follow and compare changes in BMD in different zones of proximal femur between both groups.

Results

After a mean follow-up of 21.4 ± 3.53 months, there was a significant (p < 0.05) improvement in mean HHS and VAS with no significant differences (p > 0.05) between groups. There was no significant difference (p > 0.05) between groups regarding radiological results and rates of complications. The mean overall BMD was decreased by 11.26% for group A and 8.68% for group B at the final follow-up (p > 0.05). The greatest loss was found in greater trochanter region for group A and so for group B, but to a lesser extent (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

Cementless short stem was not able to hold back proximal femoral bone loss, but only can modify or decrease its incidence within limits.

Keywords

Hip arthroplasty Short stem Bone remodeling DEXA 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Knutsen AR, Lau N, Longjohn DB, Ebramzadeh E, Sangiorgio SN (2017) Periprosthetic femoral bone loss in total hip arthroplasty: systematic analysis of the effect of stem design. Hip Int 27(1):26–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Inaba Y, Kobayashi N, Oba M, Ike H, Kubota S, Saito T (2016) Difference in postoperative periprosthetic bone mineral density changes between 3 major designs of uncemented stems: a 3-year follow-up study. J Arthroplasty 31(8):1836–1841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Parker AM, Yang L, Farzi M, Pozo JM, Frangi AF, Wilkinson JM (2017) Quantifying pelvic periprosthetic bone remodeling using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry region-free analysis. J Clin Densitom 20(4):480–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Santori N, Lucidi M, Santori FS (2006) Proximal load transfer with a stemless uncemented femoral implant. J Orthop Traumatol 7:154–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Spotorno L, Romagnoli S, Ivaldo N, Grappiolo G, Bibbiani E, Blaha DJ, Guen TA (1993) The CLS system. Theoretical concept and results. Acta Orthop Belg 59(1):144–148Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yeoman M, Lowry C, Cizinauskas A, Vincent G, Simpson D, Collins S (2018) Bone remodeling following THR; Shorts stems are less likely to lead to bone resorption. IOP Publishing, Orthopaedic Proceedings. https://online.boneandjoint.org.uk/doi/abs/10.1302/1358992x.94bsupp_xl.ista2011-177
  7. 7.
    Gabarre S, Herrera A, Ibarz E, Mateo J, Gil-Albarova G, Gracia L (2016) Comparative analysis of the biomechanical behaviour of two cementless short stems for hip replacement: Linea Anatomic and Mini hip. PLoS ONE 11(7):e0158411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Simpson D, Yeoman M, Lowry C, Cizinauskas A, Vincent G, Jerosch J, Collins S (2011) Load transfer into the proximal femur: why short stems are more advantageous with respect to the mechanical environment. ISB 2011 BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Harris WH (1969) Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular result fractures: treatment by Mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of evaluation. JBJS Am 51(A):737–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Warden V, Hurley AC, Volicer L (2003) Development and psychometric evaluation of the pain assessment in advanced dementia (PAINAD) scale. J Am Med Dir Assoc 4:9–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Massin P, Schmidt L, Engh CA (1989) Evaluation of cementless acetabular component migration. An experimental study. J Arthroplasty 4(3):245–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Engh CA, Massin P, Suthers KE (1990) Roentgenographic assessment of the biologic fixation of porous-surfaced femoral components. Clin Orthop Relat Res 257:107–128Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gruen TA, McNeice GM, Amstutz HC (1979) Mode of failure of cemented stem-type femoral components: a radiographic analysis of loosening. Clin Orthop Relat Res 141:17Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yan SG, Weber P, Steinbrück A, Hua X, Jansson V, Schmidutz F (2018) Periprosthetic bone remodeling of short-stem total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review. Int Orthop 42(9):2077–2086CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Farzi M, Morris RM, Penny J, Yang L, Pozo JM, Overgaard S, Frangi AF, Wilkinson JM (2017) Quantitating the effect of prosthesis design on femoral remodeling using high-resolution region-free densitometric analysis (DXA-RFA). J Orthop Res 35(10):2203–2210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rahmy AI, Gosens T, Blake GM, Tonino A, Fogelman I (2004) Periprosthetic bone remodeling of two types of uncemented femoral implant with proximal hydroxypatite coating: a 3-year follow-up study addressing the influence of prosthesis design and preoperative bone density on periprosthetic bone loss. Osteoporos Int 15:281–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gross TP, Liu F (2012) Risk factor analysis for early femoral failure in metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty: the effect of bone density and body mass index. J Orthop Surg Res 7:1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Frndak PA, Mallory TH, Lombardi AV Jr (1993) Translateral surgical approach to the hip: The abductor muscle “split”. Clin Orthop 295:135–141Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Duda GN, Heller M, Albinger J, Schulz O, Schneider E, Claes L (1998) Influence of muscle forces on femoral strain distribution. J Biomech 31:841–846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Frost HM (2003) Bone’s mechanostat: a 2003 update. Anat Rec A Discov Mol Cell Evol Biol 275(2):1081–1101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Joshi MG, Advani SG, Miller F, Santare MH (2000) Analysis of a femoral hip prosthesis designed to reduce stress shielding. J Biomech 33(12):1655–1662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Venesmaa PK, Kroger HP, Jurvelin JS, Miettinen HJ, Suomalainen OT, Alhava EM (2003) Periprosthetic bone loss after cemented total hip arthroplasty: a prospective 5-year dual energy radiographic absorptiometry study of 15 patients. Acta Orthop Scand 74(1):31–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tran P, Zhang BX, Lade JA, Pianta RM, Unni RP, Haw CS (2016) Periprosthetic bone remodeling after novel short-stem neck-sparing total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 31(11):2530–2535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hayashi S, Hashimoto S, Kanzaki N, Kuroda R, Kurosaka M (2016) Daily activity and initial bone mineral density are associated with periprosthetic bone mineral density after total hip arthroplasty. Hip Int 26(2):169–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Korovessis P, Droutsas P, Piperos G, Michael A, Baikousis A, Stamatakis M (1997) Course of bone mineral content changes around cementless Zweymueller total hip arthroplasty: a 4 year follow-up study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 116:60–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Albanese CV, Rendine M, De Palma F, Impagliazzo A, Falez F, Postacchini F, Villani C, Passariello R, Santori FS (2006) Bone remodeling in THA: a comparative DXA scan study between conventional implants and a new stemless femoral component. A preliminary report. Hip Int 16(3):9–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gracia L, Ibarz E, Puértolas S, Cegoñino J, López-Prats F, Panisello JJ, Herrera A (2010) Study of bone remodeling of two models of femoral cementless stems by means of DEXA and finite elements. Biomed Eng Online 9:22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Shen Y, Li X, Ding Y, Ren W, Wang W (2014) Stro-1-positive BMSCs predict postoperative periprosthetic bone mineral density outcomes in uncemented total hip arthroplasty patients. Med Sci Monit 20:361–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rosenthall L, Bobyn JD, Tanzer M (1999) Bone densitometry: influence of prosthetic design and hydroxyapatite coating on regional adaptive bone remodeling. Int Orthop 23:325–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pitto RP, Hayward A, Walker C, Shim VB (2010) Femoral bone density changes after total hip arthroplasty with uncemented taper design stem: a five year follow-up study. Int Orthop 34:783–787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Decking R, Puhl W, Simon U, Claes LE (2006) Changes in strain distribution of loaded proximal femora caused by different types of cementless femoral stems. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 21:495–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tanzer M, Kantor S, Rosenthall L, Bobyn JD (2001) Femoral remodeling after porous-coated total hip arthroplasty with and without hydroxyapatite-tricalcium phosphate coating: a prospective randomized trial. J Arthroplasty 16:552–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Nevitt MC, Lane NE, Scott JC, Hochberg MC, Pressman AR, Genant HK, Cummings SR (1995) Radiographic osteoarthritis of the hip and bone mineral density. The study of osteoporotic fractures research group. Arthritis Rheum 38(7):907–916CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Venesmaa PK, Kröger HPJ, Miettinen HJA, Jurvelin JS, Suomalainen OT, Alhava EM (2001) Monitoring of periprosthetic BMD after uncemented total hip arthroplasty with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry—a 3 year follow-up study. J Bone Miner Res 16:1056–1061CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Orthopedic DepartmentTanta University Hospital, Tanta UniversityTantaEgypt

Personalised recommendations