Short-stem total hip arthroplasty (THA) aims to preserve proximal femoral bone stock and promote physiological load transfer compared to conventional cementless stems. This design is particularly relevant for younger, active patients, in whom long-term implant survival and bone preservation are critical.
Objective:
To systematically review and meta-analyse the functional and radiological outcomes of short-stem THA in young patients.
Methods:
A systematic search of Medline, Embase, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library was conducted to May 2025 following PRISMA guidelines. Eligible studies included patients with mean age <55 years and ⩾4.5 years mean follow-up. Primary outcome was Harris Hip Score (HHS) or modified Harris Hip score (mHHS); secondary outcomes were complications, survivorship, and radiological findings.
Results:
32 studies involving 4082 hips (mean age 46.7 years, mean follow-up 8.6 years) were included. Mean HHS improved from 45.3 to 93.8. Complications were infrequent, including intraoperative fracture (1.6%), dislocation (0.6%), and infection (0.4%). Radiological changes, including osteolysis (1.3%), heterotopic ossification (1.9%), and stem subsidence ⩾2 mm (0.7%), were uncommon. Stem survivorship free from aseptic loosening was 99.7%. The overall revision rate was 1.6%. Subgroup analyses indicated better outcomes and lower revision rates with posterolateral approaches and ceramic-on-ceramic bearings.
Conclusions:
Short-stem total hip arthroplasty in patients younger than 55 years appears to be associated with excellent mid- to long-term functional outcomes, low complication rates, and high implant survivorship. While these findings suggest that short stems are a safe and durable option for young, active patients, substantial heterogeneity across studies and the limited randomised evidence warrant cautious interpretation. These findings are hypothesis-generating and warrant confirmation in adequately powered prospective studies.
LoppiniMGrappioloG.Uncemented short stems in primary total hip arthroplasty: the state of the art. EFORT Open Rev2018; 3: 149–159.
2.
BarbierORassatRCaubèreA, 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 Orthop2024; 48: 1017–1022.
3.
SivaloganathanSMaillotCHarmanC, et al. Neck-sparing short femoral stems: a meta-analysis. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res2020; 106: 1481–1494.
4.
LiangHDYangWYPanJK, et al. Are short-stem prostheses superior to conventional stem prostheses in primary total hip arthroplasty? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ Open2018; 8: e021649.
5.
ZhangZXingQLiJ, et al. A comparison of short-stem prostheses and conventional stem prostheses in primary total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta- analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ann Transl Med2021; 9: 231.
6.
YanSGChevalierYLiuF, et al. Metaphyseal anchoring short stem hip arthroplasty provides a more physiological load transfer: a comparative finite element analysis study. J Orthop Surg Res2020; 15: 498.
7.
WonSHParkJWLeeYK, et al. No clinically important differences in thigh pain or bone loss between short stems and conventional-length stems in THA: a randomized clinical trial. Clin Orthop Relat Res2021; 479: 767–777.
8.
HuoSCWangFDongLJ, et al. Short-stem prostheses in primary total hip arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Medicine (Baltimore)2016; 95: e5215.
9.
FalezFCasellaFPanegrossiG, et al. Perspectives on metaphyseal conservative stems. J Orthop Traumatol2008; 9: 49–54.
10.
GulowJScholzRFreiherr von Salis-SoglioG.Short-stemmed endoprostheses in total hip arthroplasty. Orthopade2007; 36: 353–359. German
11.
KhanujaHSBanerjeeSJainD, et al. Short bone-conserving stems in cementless hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am2014; 96: 1742–1752.
12.
van OldenrijkJMollemanJKlaverM, et al. Revision rate after short-stem total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review of 49 studies. Acta Orthop2014; 85: 250–258.
13.
BurchardRBraasSSoostC, et al. Bone preserving level of osteotomy in short-stem total hip arthroplasty does not influence stress shielding dimensions - a comparing finite elements analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord2017; 18: 343.
14.
PageMJMcKenzieJEBossuytPM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ2021; 372: n71.
WanXWangWLiuJ, et al. Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range. BMC Med Res Methodol2014; 14: 135.
17.
SterneJACSavovićJPageMJ, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ2019; 366: l4898.
18.
SterneJAHernánMAReevesBC, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ2016; 355: i4919.
19.
HartungJKnappG.On tests of the overall treatment effect in meta-analysis with normally distributed responses. Stat Med2001; 20: 1771–1782.
20.
MorreyBFAdamsRAKesslerM.A conservative femoral replacement for total hip arthroplasty. A prospective study. J Bone Joint Surg Br2000; 82: 952–958.
21.
KimYHParkJWKimJS.Behaviour of the ultra-short anatomic cementless femoral stem in young and elderly patients. Int Orthop2013; 37: 2323–2330.
22.
ThoreyFHoeferCAbdi-TabariN, et al. Clinical results of the metha short hip stem: a perspective for younger patients?Orthop Rev (Pavia)2013; 5: e34.
23.
HuttJHarbZGillI, et al. Ten year results of the collum femoris preserving total hip replacement: a prospective cohort study of seventy five patients. Int Orthop2014; 38: 917–922.
24.
KimYHParkJWKimJS, et al. Long-term results and bone remodeling after THA with a short, metaphyseal-fitting anatomic cementless stem. Clin Orthop Relat Res2014; 472: 943–950.
25.
ChoiYWKimSG.The short-term clinical outcome of total hip arthroplasty using short metaphyseal loading femoral stem. Hip Pelvis2016; 28: 82–89.
26.
KimYHParkJWKimJS.Metaphyseal engaging short and ultra-short anatomic cementless stems in young and active patients. J Arthroplasty2016; 31: 180–185.
27.
KimYHParkJWKimJS.Ultrashort versus conventional anatomic cementless femoral stems in the same patients younger than 55 years. Clin Orthop Relat Res2016; 474: 2008–2017.
28.
MalhotraRKumarV.Mid-term outcome of total hip arthroplasty using a short stem. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong)2016; 24: 323–327.
29.
ShinYSSuhDHParkJH, et al. Comparison of specific femoral short stems and conventional-length stems in primary cementless total hip arthroplasty. Orthopedics2016; 39: e311–e317.
30.
CaponeABienatiFTorchiaS, et al. Short stem total hip arthroplasty for osteonecrosis of the femoral head in patients 60 years or younger: a 3- to 10-year follow-up study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord2017; 18: 301.
31.
LiMXuCXieJ, et al. Comparison of collum femoris-preserving stems and ribbed stems in primary total hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Surg Res2018; 13: 271.
32.
GombárCJanositzGFriebertG, et al. The DePuy Proxima™ short stem for total hip arthroplasty - Excellent outcome at a minimum of 7 years. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong)2019; 27: 2309499019838668.
33.
SuksathienYSueajuiJ.Mid-term results of short stem total hip arthroplasty in patients with osteonecrosis of the femoral head. Hip Int2019; 29: 603–608.
34.
KimYHParkJW.Long-term outcomes of ultra-short metaphyseal-fitting anatomic cementless femoral stem in total hip arthroplasty with ceramic-on-ceramic articulation for young patients. J Arthroplasty2019; 34: 2427–2433.
35.
KimYHParkJW.Ultra-short anatomic uncemented femoral stem and ceramic-on-ceramic bearing in patients with idiopathic or ethanol-induced femoral head osteonecrosis. J Arthroplasty2020; 35: 212–218.
36.
KimSSKimHJKimKW, et al. Comparative analysis between short stem and conventional femoral stem in patients with osteonecrosis of femoral head: Metha stem and Excia stem. Orthop Surg2020; 12: 819–826.
37.
SuksathienYTippimanchaiTAkkrasaengT, et al. Mid-term results of short-stem total hip arthroplasty in patients with Crowe type I and II developmental dysplasia of the hip. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol2021; 31: 319–325.
38.
HolzapfelBMRakDKreuzerS, et al. Short stem hip arthroplasty via the minimally invasive direct anterior approach. Oper Orthop Traumatol2021; 33: 288–303.
39.
SuksathienYSuarjuiJRuangboonC, et al. Mid-term results of short versus conventional cementless femoral stems in patients with bilateral osteonecrosis of the femoral head. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol2022; 32: 47–53.
40.
ZhenPChangYYueH, et al. Primary total hip arthroplasty using a short bone-conserving stem in young adult osteoporotic patients with Dorr type C femoral bone. J Orthop Surg Res2021; 16: 17.
41.
Del Río-ArteagaMPayo-OlleroJVallejoM, et al. Short neck-preserving femoral stem for total hip arthroplasty: medium-term results of a 68-case series. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg2022; 142: 2093–2101.
42.
Godoy-MonzonDMartinezSPerez TorresJ, et al. Primary outcomes of a femoral neck-preserving stem: a multicentre clinical-radiological analysis at 5-year follow-up. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol2022; 32: 533–540.
43.
KimYHParkJWJangYS, et al. Does an ultra-short anatomic cementless femoral stem improve long-term (up to 17 years) results in patients younger than 30 years?J Arthroplasty2022; 37: 2225–2232.
44.
SousaAValeJDinizS, 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 Traumatol2022; 32: 693–700.
45.
Diaz-DilerniaFLuceroCSlullitelPA, et al. Medium-term outcomes of conventional versus short uncemented femoral stems for primary total hip arthroplasty in patients younger than 55 years. Hip Int2024; 34: 82–91.
46.
NecasLHrubinaMMelisikM, et al. Total hip arthroplasty with ultra-short uncemented stem in patients with osteonecrosis of the femoral head: mid-term results. Hip Int2023; 33: 463–470.
47.
HrubinaMNecasLMelisikM, et al. Mid-term results of total hip arthroplasty with anatomical ultra-short cementless stem in patients with developmental dysplasia of the hip Crowe type II. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol2024; 34: 1619–1625.
48.
LatorreMRLuceroCMTevesJI, et al. Long-term outcomes with a partial neck-preserving cementless short stem in primary total hip arthroplasty for young patients: a single center first one hundred cases. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg2024; 145: 10.
49.
SuksathienYSuarjuiJTippimanchaiT, et al. Long-term results of short stem total hip arthroplasty in patients with osteonecrosis of the femoral head. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg2024; 145: 9.
50.
KumarMSharmaAKsheerasagarVP, et al. Long-term follow-up result of short metaphyseal femoral stem in primary total hip arthroplasty: a retrospective study. World J Orthop2025; 16: 100173.
51.
SteinbrückAGrimbergAWElliottJ, et al. Short versus conventional stem in cementless total hip arthroplasty. Orthopade2021; 50: 296–305.
52.
LidderSEpsteinDJScottG.A systematic review of short metaphyseal loading cementless stems in hip arthroplasty. Bone Joint J2019; 101-B: 502–511.
53.
MasonisJLBourneRB.Surgical approach, abductor function, and total hip arthroplasty dislocation. Clin Orthop Relat Res2002; 405: 46–53.
54.
JollesBMZanggerPLeyvrazPF.Factors predisposing to dislocation after primary total hip arthroplasty: a multivariate analysis. J Arthroplasty2002; 17: 282–288.
55.
AlecciVValenteMCrucilM, et al. Comparison of primary total hip replacements performed with a direct anterior approach versus the standard lateral approach: perioperative findings. J Orthop Traumatol2011; 12: 123–129.
56.
KutznerKPFreitagTKovacevicMP, et al. One-stage bilateral versus unilateral short-stem total hip arthroplasty: comparison of migration patterns using “Ein-Bild-Roentgen-Analysis Femoral-Component-Analysis”. Int Orthop2017; 41: 61–66.
57.
LombardiAVJrSkeelsMDBerendKR, et al. Do large heads enhance stability and restore native anatomy in primary total hip arthroplasty?Clin Orthop Relat Res2011; 469: 1547–1553.
58.
D’AntonioJACapelloWNNaughtonM.Ceramic bearings for total hip arthroplasty have high survivorship at 10 years. Clin Orthop Relat Res2012; 470: 373–381.
