No differences in clinical and radiographic outcomes between standard and shortened versions of a same cementless femoral stem in Dorr type A femurs

Abstract

Purpose:

In Dorr type A femurs (DTAF), the flared anatomy renders proximal femoral filling (PFF) with a standard-length stem (STA) challenging, although this is essential to ensure favourable outcomes. This study compared clinical and radiographic outcomes between standard and shortened versions of a same cementless stem in DTAF. Our hypothesis was that there would be no differences in clinical outcomes, PFF or osseointegration between the 2 stems.

Methods:

We reviewed 87 THA files performed in DTAF from 2013 to 2015 for STA and from 2015 to 2019 for shortened-length stems (SHO). At minimum 2-year follow-up, 8 patients were unavailable for evaluation, leaving 79 THA: 34 STA and 45 SHO. Femoral morphology was assessed preoperatively with the canal-calcar ratio (CCR) and canal bone ratio (CBR). Outcomes included: Oxford Hip Score (OHS) and PMA, proximal canal fill ratio (CFR)(A) and (B), stem subsidence and alignment, distal cortical hypertrophy, and Engh score.

Results:

There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes, PFF and osseointegration between the 2 groups. Greater migration was observed in STA. Distal cortical hypertrophy was seen exclusively in SHO and was significantly associated with a worse OHS. CCR was significantly correlated with proximal CFR. Aligned stems were significantly associated with higher CFR(B).

Conclusions:

There were no differences in clinical or radiographic outcomes of STA and SHO in DTAF. Increasing CFR enhanced stem alignment, while femoral morphology significantly influenced PFF. SHO migrated less, but exhibited distal cortical hypertrophy, which may indicate early stress-shielding and challenge the stem’s “short” designation.

Keywords

Canal filling femoral morphology osseointegration short stem total hip arthroplasty

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Learmonth

Young

Rorabeck

The operation of the century: total hip replacement. Lancet 2007; 370: 1508–1519.

Fa-Binefa

Serra

Moya

, et al. Hydroxyapatite-coated total primary hip replacement: 28-year follow-up survivorship. Hip Int 2025; 35: 159–166.

Engh

Bobyn

JD.

The influence of stem size and extent of porous coating on femoral bone resorption after primary cementless hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1988; 231: 7–28.

Kim

Cho

SH.

Strain distribution in the proximal human femur. An in vitro comparison in the intact femur and after insertion of reference and experimental femoral stems. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2001; 83: 295–301.

Fernandez-Fernandez

García-Elias

Gil-Garay

Peroperative fractures in uncemented total hip arthroplasty: results with a single design of stem implant. Int Orthop 2008; 32: 307–313.

Cooper

Jacob

Rodriguez

JA.

Distal fixation of proximally coated tapered stems may predispose to a failure of osteointegration. J Arthroplasty 2011; 26(Suppl.): 78–83.

Azzam

Austin

Sharkey

PF.

Early failure of a nonmodular titanium femoral stem after primary hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2010; 25: 333.e1–333.e5.

Zhang

Yao

, et al. Risk factors for periprosthetic femoral fractures after cementless total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2024; 39: 2547–2554.

D’Ambrosio

Peduzzi

Roche

, et al. Influence of femoral morphology and canal fill ratio on early radiological and clinical outcomes of uncemented total hip arthroplasty using a fully coated stem. Bone Joint Res 2020; 9: 182–191.

10.

Streit

Innmann

Merle

, et al. Long-term (20- to 25-year) results of an uncemented tapered titanium femoral component and factors affecting survivorship. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2013; 471: 3262–3269.

11.

Nam

Sauber

Barrack

, et al. Radiographic parameters associated with pain following total hip and surface arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30: 495–501.

12.

Ishii

Homma

Baba

, et al. Does the canal fill ratio and femoral morphology of Asian females influence early radiographic outcomes of total hip arthroplasty with an uncemented proximally coated, tapered-wedge stem? J Arthroplasty 2016; 31: 1524–1528.

13.

Stulberg

Patel

RM.

The short stem: promises and pitfalls. Bone Joint J 2013; 95-B(Suppl. A): 57–62.

14.

Wilkerson

Fernando

ND.

Classifications in brief: the Dorr classification of femoral bone. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2020; 478: 1939–1944.

15.

Khanuja

Vakil

Goddard

, et al. Cementless femoral fixation in total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011; 93: 500–509.

16.

Dorr

Faugere

Mackel

, et al. Structural and cellular assessment of bone quality of proximal femur. Bone 1993; 14: 231–242.

17.

Khanuja

Banerjee

Jain

, et al. Short bone-conserving stems in cementless hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2014; 96: 1742–1752.

18.

Feyen

Shimmin

AJ.

Is the length of the femoral component important in primary total hip replacement?

Bone Joint J 2014; 96-B: 442–448.

19.

Barbier

Rassat

Caubère

, et al. Short-stem total hip arthroplasty is equivalent to a standard-length stem procedure in an unselected population at mid-term follow-up. Int Orthop 2024; 48: 1017–1022.

20.

Sakai

Sugano

Nishii

, et al. Stem length and canal filling in uncemented custom-made total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop 1999; 23: 219–223.

21.

Sousa

Vale

Diniz

, et al. Comparison of short-stem versus conventional stem for hip arthroplasty in patients younger than 60 years: 7-14 years follow-up. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2022; 32: 693–700.

22.

Van Beers

LWAH

Scheijbeler

Van Oldenrijk

, et al. Short versus conventional straight stem in uncemented total hip arthroplasty: functional outcomes up to 5 years and survival up to 12 years: secondary results of a randomized controlled trial. Acta Orthop 2024; 95: 99–107.

23.

Van Veghel

MHW

Hannink

Van Oldenrijk

, et al. A comparison of uncemented short versus standard stem length in total hip arthroplasty: results from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop 2023; 94: 330–335.

24.

Jacquel

Le Viguelloux

Valluy

, et al. A shortened uncemented stem offers comparable positioning and increased metaphyseal fill compared to a standard uncemented stem. J Exp Orthop 2019; 6: 28.

25.

Pogliacomi

Schiavi

Grappiolo

, et al. Outcome of short versus conventional stem for total hip arthroplasty in the femur with a high cortical index: a five year follow-up prospective multicentre comparative study. Int Orthop 2020; 44: 61–68.

26.

Erivan

Villatte

Dartus

, et al. French Hip & Knee Society classification of short-stem hip prostheses: inter- and intra-observer reproducibility. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2022; 108: 103126.

27.

Dorr

LD.

Total hip replacement using APR system. Tech Orthop 1986; 1: 22–34.

28.

Yeung

Chiu

Yau

, et al. Assessment of the proximal femoral morphology using plain radiograph-can it predict the bone quality? J Arthroplasty 2006; 21: 508–513.

29.

Engh

Massin

Suthers

KE.

Roentgenographic assessment of the biologic fixation of porous-surfaced femoral components. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1990; 257: 107–128.

30.

Diaz-Dilernia

Lucero

Slullitel

, et al. Medium-term outcomes of conventional versus short uncemented femoral stems for primary total hip arthroplasty in patients younger than 55 years. Hip Int 2024; 34: 82–91.