The correct implacement of the femoral component is decisive in the longevity of the total hip replacement (THR). The stem has to be placed along the anatomical axis of the femur and accomodated to the internal wall of the femoral canal to prevent tilting, subsidence, torsion movement and its clinical disadvantages. The author discusses the biomechanical consideration as well as the operative method.
BarrackR.L., JastyM., BragdonC.Thigh pain despite bone ingrowth into uncemented femoral stems. J Bone Joint Surg1992; 74-B507–10.
2.
CallaghanJ.J., FulghumC.S., GlissonR.R., StranneS.K.The effect of femoral stem geometry on interface motion in uncemented porous-coated total hip prostheses. Comparison of straight-stem and curved-stem designs. J Bone Joint Surg1992; 74-A: 839–48.
3.
CampbellA.C.L., RorabeckC.H., BourneR.B.Thigh pain after cementless hip arthroplasty. Annoyance or ill omen. J Bone Joint Surg1992; 74-B: 63–6.
4.
CarterD.R., FyhrieD.P., WhalenR.T.Trabecular bone density and loading history: regulation of mechanical tissue biology by mechanical energy. J Biochem1987; 20: 785–94.
5.
CrowninshieldR.D., BrandR.A., JohnstonR.C., MilroyJ.C.An analysis of femoral component stem design in total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg1980; 62-A: 68–78.
6.
CrowninshieldR.D., BrandR.A., JohnstonR.C., MilroyJ.C.The effect of femoral stem cross-sectional geometry on cement stresses in total hip reconstruction. Clin Orthop1980; 146: 71–7.
7.
DaiK.R., AnK.N., HeinT., NakajmaI., ChaoE.Y.Geometric and biomechanical analysis of the human femur. Trans Orthop Res Soc1985; 10: 99.
8.
EnghC.A., O'ConnorD., JastyM., McGovernT.F., BobynJ.D., HarrisW.H.Quantification of implant micromotion, strain shielding, and bone resorption with porous coated anatomic medullary locking femoral prothesis. Clin Orthop1992; 285: 13–30.
9.
EnghC.A., MassinP.Femoral response to the cementless prosthesis. In: CoombsR., GristinaA., HungerfordD., eds. Joint replacement.London: Orthotext1990; 97–102.
10.
EvansB., CohenC., MitchellJ., HeppenstasllR., DucheyneP., CucklerJ.Relationships between canal fill and interfacial displacement for an in vivo loaded porous ingrowth femoral prosthesis. Trans Orthop Res Soc1990; 15: 201.
11.
FreemanM.Preservation of the femoral neck. In: CoombsR., GristinaA., HungerfordD., ed. Joint Replacement.London: Orthotext1990; 91–5.
GruenT.A., McNeiceG.M., AmstutzH.C.Modes of failure of cemented stem-type femoral components. A radiographic analysis of loosening. Clin Orthop1979; 141: 17–27.
14.
HardingeK., PortrerM.L., JonesP.R., HukinsD.W.L., TaylorC.J.Measurement of hip prostheses using image analysis. The maxima hip technique. J Bone Joint Surg1991; 73-B: 724–8.
15.
HarperM.C., CarsonW.L.Curvature of the femur and the proximal entry point for an amedullary road. Clin Orthop1987; 220: 155–62.
16.
HenssgeE.J., GrundeiH., EispierR.Anatomisch richtiges Design von Femurschaftimplantaten. Z Orthop1980; 118: 592–600.
17.
HorneG.Fit and fill: fashionable fact or fantasy?J Bone Joint Surg1992; 74-B: 4–5.
18.
HuiskesR.Some fundamental aspects of human joint replacement. Acta Orth Scand (Suppl)1980; 185.
19.
HuiskesR., WeinansH., GrootenboerH.J., DalstraM., FudulaB., SloofT.J.Adaptive bone remodelling theory applied to prosthetic design analysis. J Biochem1987; 20: 1135–50.
20.
JastyM., HenshawR.M., O'ConnorD.O., HarriganR.P., HarrisW.H.Strain alterations in the proximal femur with an uncemented femoral prosthesis emphasising the effect of component fixation. Proc Orthop Res Soc, Atlanta, Georgia1988; 335.
21.
JinnahR.J., CurtisM.J., RobertsonD.D., EssingerJ.R., ZarnowskiA.The relation of stem length to strain distribution and stability in custom total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Suppl II1992; 162.
KamaricE., NobleP.C., TullosH.S.Computer optimization of the shape of cementless femoral prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg, Supplement II, 1992; 163.
24.
KrakovitsG.Cementless implantation of the stem of different type of standard hip endoprothesis. In: Regling, ed. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter.
25.
KrakovitsG., SassL.Biomechanical aspects of femoral stem anchoring during total hip replacement. Acta Chir Hung1993; 33-34: 128–35.
26.
MaloneyW.J., JastyM., HarrisW.H., GalanteJ.O., CallaghanJ.J.Endosteal erosion in association with stable uncemented femoral components. J Bone Joint Surg1990; 72-A: 1025–34.
27.
MjöbergB., HansonL.I., SelvikG.Instability of total hip prosthesis at rotational stress: a roentgen stereophotogrammetric study. Acta Orthop Scand1984; 55: 504–6.
28.
MorettonJ.C., CravoisyJ.C.Optimization of the femoral stem according to the shape of the medullary canal. J Bone Joint Surg Supplement II1992; 162.
29.
MorscherE., SchmassmennA.Failures of total hip arthroplasty and probable incidence of revision surgery in the future. (Calculation according to a mathematical model based on a ten year experiment in THR). Arch Orthop Trauma Surg1983; 101: 137–43.
30.
MulierJ.C., MulierM., BradyL.P.Intraoperative production of femoral prosthesis. In: CoombsR., GristinaA., HungerfordD., ed. Joint Replacement.London: Orthotext1990; 163–9.
NobleP.C., KamaricE., AlexanderJ.W.Distal stem centralization critically affects the acute fixation of the cementless femoral stems. Trans Orthop Res Soc1989; 14: 409.
33.
PazzagliaU.E., GhiselliniF., CiottiM., ZattiG., CherubinoP.Lateral or valgus shift: a mode of failure of cementless stems. Hip International1992; 2: 79–81.
34.
RubinP.J., LeyvrazP.F., AubaniacJ.M., ArgensonJ.N., EstéveP., De RoguinB.The morphology of the proximal femur. A three dimensional radiographic analysis. J Bone Joint Surg1992; 74-B: 28–32.
35.
WalkerP.S., SchneeweisD., MurphyS., NelsonP.Strains and micromotions of press-fit femoral stem prostheses. J Biomech1987; 20: 693–8.
