Advertisement

Is there any difference between tapered titanium stems with similar geometry and hydroxyapatite coating?

  • G. CinottiEmail author
  • G. Mazzotta
  • F. Romana Ripani
  • G. La Torre
  • G. Giannicola
Original Article
  • 33 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Several tapered stems with similar geometry and extensive hydroxyapatite coating have recently been introduced. It is not clear, however, whether they share the same design or whether they exhibit any difference that might affect their clinical performances. In this study, we analysed five tapered stems fully coated with hydroxyapatite to establish whether they exhibit similar geometric features and may therefore be used indifferently when a cementless stem is indicated.

Methods

The length of the stem, the coronal and sagittal diameters, the length of the stem shoulder and the metadiaphyseal angle were measured. The ratio between the proximal and distal coronal diameters of the stem and that between the proximal and distal cross-sectional areas were calculated as a flare index and tapered index, respectively.

Results

The proximal coronal diameter ranged between 24.9 and 28 mm in the smaller size and between 34 and 38.4 mm in the largest sizes. The proximal sagittal diameter ranged between 10.2 and 11.8 in the smallest size and between 14.4 and 17.2 in the largest. A significant difference was found between stems of different brands in the flare index, tapered index, length of stem shoulder and metadiaphyseal angle.

Conclusions

Lookalike tapered stems with extensive HA coating actually exhibit significant differences in several geometric features potentially affecting their clinical performances. As a result, these stems should not be used indifferently, but rather they should be selected on the basis of the femoral morphology of the operated patient.

Keywords

Tapered titanium stem Hydroxyapatite coating Stem geometry Total hip arthroplasty Stress shielding 

Notes

Authors’ contributions

GC has planned the study, analysed data and written the manuscript. GM and FRR performed the measurements on the all series of stems; GLT performed statistical analysis and contributed to the data interpretation; GG was a major contributor in the planning of the study, analysis of data and writing the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Sources of support

The involved companies provided the stems analysed.

Conflict of interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests in this section.

References

  1. 1.
    Froimson MI, Garino J, Machenaud A, Vidalain JP (2007) Minimum 10-year results of a tapered, titanium, hydroxyapatite-coated hip stem an independent review. J Arthroplasty 22:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hallan G, Lie SA, Furnes O, Engesaeter LB, Vollset SE, Havelin LI (2007) Medium- and long-term performance of 11.516 uncemented primary femoral stems from the Norwegian arthroplasty register. J Bone Joint Surg Br 89:1574–1580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vidalain J-P (2011) Twenty-year results of cementless Corail stem. Int Orthop 35:189–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bloebaum RD, Zou L, Bachus KN, Shea KG, Hofmann AA, Dunn HK (1997) Analysis of particles in acetabular components from patients with osteolysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 338:109–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Collier JP, Surprenant VA, Mayor MB, Wrona M, Jensen RE, Surprenant HP (1993) Loss of hydroxyapatite coating on retrieved, total hip components. J Arthroplasty 8(4):389–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rbkkum M, Registad A, Johansson CB (2002) HA particles can be released from well-fixed HA-coated stems. Histopathology of biopsies from 20 hips 2–8 years after implantation. Acta Orthop Scand 73:298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sudhahar TA, Morapudi S, Branes K (2009) Evaluation of subsidence between collarless and collared corail femoral cementless total hip replacement. J Orthop 6(2):e3Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Callary SA, Campbell DG, Mercer GE, Nilsson KG, Field JR (2012) The 6-year migration characteristics of a hydroxyapatite-coated femoral stem: a radiostereometric analysis study. J Arthroplasty 27:1344–1348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Campbell D, Mercer G, Nilsson KG, Wells V, Field JR, Callary SA (2011) Early migration characteristics of a hydroxyapatite-coated femoral stem: an RSA study. Int Orthop 35(4):483–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pentlow AK, Heal JS (2012) Subsidence of collarless uncemented femoral stems in total hips replacements performed for trauma. Injury Int J Care Injured 43:882–885CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Selvaratnam V, Shetty V, Sahni V (2015) Subsidence in collarless Corail hip replacement. The Open Orthop J 9:194–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Faisal M, Thomas G, Young SK (2011) Subsidence of the Corail femoral component in the elderly. A retrospective radiological review. Hip Int 21:325–329.  https://doi.org/10.5301/HIP.2011.8409 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hirata Y, Inaba Y, Kobayashi N, Ike H, Fujimaki H, Saito T (2013) Comparison of mechanical stress and change in bone mineral density between two types of femoral implant using finite element analysis. J Arthroplasty 28:1731–1735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Huiskes R (1999) The various stress patterns of press-fit, ingrown, and cemented femoral stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res 261:27–38Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sano K, Ito K, Yamamoto K (2008) Changes of bone mineral density after cementless total hip arthroplasty with two different stems. Int Orthop 32(2):167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    van der Wal BC, de Kramer BJ, Grimm B, Vencken W, Heyligers IC, Tonino AJ (2008) Femoral fit in ABG-II hip stems, influence on clinical outcome and bone remodeling: a radiographic study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 128(10):1065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Capello WN, D’Antonio JA, Geesink RG, Feinberg JR, Naughton M (2009) Late remodeling around a proximally HA-coated tapered titanium femoral component. Clin Orthop Rel Res 467:155–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cooper HJ, Jacob AP, Rodriguez JA (2011) Distal fixation of proximally coated tapered stems may predispose to a failure of osteointegration. J Arthroplasty 26:78–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mueller LA, Nowak TE, Haeberle L, Mueller LP, Kress A, Voelk M et al (2010) Progressive femoral cortical and cancellous bone density loss after uncemented tapered-design stem fixation. A 6-year follow-up. Acta Orthop 81:171–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Panisello JJ, Herrero L, Canales V, Herrera H, Martínez A, Mateo J (2009) Long-term remodeling in proximal femur around a hydroxyapatite-coated anatomic stem ten years densitometric follow-up. J Arthroplasty 24:56–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cinotti G, Della Rocca A, Sessa P, Ripani FR, Giannicola G (2013) Thigh pain, subsidence and survival using a short cementless femoral stem with pure metaphyseal fixation at minimum 9-year follow-up. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 99(1):30–36.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2012.09.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kim Y-H (2008) The results of a proximally-coated Cementless femoral component in total hip replacement. A five-to 12-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br 90:299–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dorr LD, Faugere MC, Mackel AM, Gruen TA, Bognar B, Malluche HH (1993) Structural and cellular assessment of bone quality of proximal femur. Bone 14:231–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Anatomical, Histological, Forensic Medicine and Orthopaedics SciencesUniversity “La Sapienza”RomeItaly
  2. 2.Department of Public Health and Infectious DiseasesUniversity “La Sapienza”RomeItaly
  3. 3.Orthopaedic DepartmentSan Filippo Neri HospitalRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations