Stem length in primary cementless total hip arthroplasty: Does it make a difference in bone remodeling?
- 30 Downloads
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.
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.
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).
Cementless short stem was not able to hold back proximal femoral bone loss, but only can modify or decrease its incidence within limits.
KeywordsHip arthroplasty Short stem Bone remodeling DEXA
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 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.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
- 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
- 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.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
- 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
- 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
- 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