A short stem hip arthroplasty can be revised in many cases using a conventional stem. Furthermore, in some cases the implantation of a short stem is intended, but intraoperatively reasons may lead to the decision to implant a conventional stem after previous preparation of a short stem.
OBJECTIVE:
In both cases it is questionable if the anchorage of a conventional stem is negatively affected by the previous preparation of a short stem. In clinical practice mid- or long-term follow up for these special cases hardly exist.
METHODS:
The strain patterns for the conventional Bicontact stem in primary implantation and after preparation of the proximal femur for a METHA short stem were tested biomechanically in three pairs of cadaveric femora.
RESULTS:
The strain patterns for the conventional Bicontact after preparation of the METHA short stem were similar to conditions after testing the conventional stem in primary conditions.
CONCLUSIONS:
These data lead to the consequence that in clinical practise the implantation of a conventional stem after preparation of a short stem and even after revision of a short stem is possible without increased risk of loosening or long-term stress-shielding.
FalezFCasellaFPapaliaM. Current concepts, classification, and results in short stem hip arthroplasty. Orthopedics2015 Mar; 38(3 Suppl): 6-13.
2.
FloerkemeierTGronewoldJBernerSOlenderGHurschlerCWindhagenH, et al. The influence of resection height on proximal femoral strain patterns after Metha short stem hip arthroplasty: an experimental study on composite femora. Int Orthop2013 Mar; 37(3): 369-77.
GronewoldJBernerSOlenderGHurschlerCWindhagenHvonLG, et al. Changes in strain patterns after implantation of a short stem with metaphyseal anchorage compared to a standard stem: an experimental study in synthetic bone. Orthop Rev (Pavia)2014 Mar 18; 6(1): 25-32.
5.
BiegerRIgnatiusADeckingRClaesLReichelHDurselenL. Primary stability and strain distribution of cementless hip stems as a function of implant design. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)2012 Feb; 27(2): 158-64.
6.
HerreraAPaniselloJJIbarzECegoninoJPuertolasJAGraciaL. Comparison between DEXA and finite element studies in the long-term bone remodeling of an anatomical femoral stem. J Biomech Eng2009 Apr; 131(4): 041013.
7.
HuiskesRWeinansHDalstraM. Adaptive bone remodeling and biomechanical design considerations for noncemented total hip arthroplasty. Orthopedics1989 Sep; 12(9): 1255-67.
8.
AlbaneseCVSantoriFSPavanLLearmonthIDPassarielloR. Periprosthetic DXA after total hip arthroplasty with short vs. ultra-short custom-made femoral stems: 37 patients followed for 3 years. Acta Orthop2009 Jun; 80(3): 291-7.
9.
LogroscinoGCirielloVD’AntonioEDeTVPicioccoPMagliocchettiLG, et al. Bone integration of new stemless hip implants (proxima vs. nanos). A DXA study: preliminary results. Int J Immunopathol Pharmacol2011 Jan; 24(1 Suppl 2): 113-6.
10.
CristofoliniLJuszczykMTaddeiFFieldRERushtonNVicecontiM. Stress shielding and stress concentration of contemporary epiphyseal hip prostheses. Proc Inst Mech Eng H2009 Jan; 223(1): 27-44.
11.
DeckingRPuhlWSimonUClaesLE. Changes in strain distribution of loaded proximal femora caused by different types of cementless femoral stems. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)2006 Jun; 21(5): 495-501.
12.
KimYHKimJSChoSH. 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 Br2001 Mar; 83(2): 295-301.
13.
OstbyhaugPOKlaksvikJRomundstadPAamodtA. An in vitro study of the strain distribution in human femora with anatomical and customised femoral stems. J Bone Joint Surg Br2009 May; 91(5): 676-82.
14.
FloerkemeierTBuddeSHurschlerCLewinskiGWindhagenHGronewoldJ. Influence of size and CCD-angle of a short stem hip arthroplasty on strain patterns of the proximal femur – an experimental study. Acta Bioeng Biomech2017; 19(1): 141-9.
15.
LerchMvon derHaan-TrenWindhagenHBehrensBAWefstaedtPStukenborg-ColsmanCM. Bone remodelling around the Metha short stem in total hip arthroplasty: a prospective dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry study. Int Orthop2012 Mar; 36(3): 533-8.
16.
UmedaNSaitoMSuganoNOhzonoKNishiiTSakaiT, et al. Correlation between femoral neck version and strain on the femur after insertion of femoral prosthesis. J Orthop Sci2003; 8(3): 381-6.
17.
AamodtALund-LarsenJEineJAndersenEBenumPHusbyOS. Changes in proximal femoral strain after insertion of uncemented standard and customised femoral stems. An experimental study in human femora. J Bone Joint Surg Br2001 Aug; 83(6): 921-9.
18.
FottnerASchmidMBirkenmaierCMazoochianFPlitzWVolkmarJ. Biomechanical evaluation of two types of short-stemmed hip prostheses compared to the trust plate prosthesis by three-dimensional measurement of micromotions. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)2009 Jun; 24(5): 429-34.
19.
SteinhauserEEllenriederMGruberGBuschRGradingerRMittelmeierW. Influence on load transfer of different femoral neck endoprostheses. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb2006 Jul; 144(4): 386-93.
20.
WestphalFMBishopNHonlMHilleEPuschelKMorlockMM. Migration and cyclic motion of a new short-stemmed hip prosthesis – a biomechanical in vitro study. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)2006 Oct; 21(8): 834-40.
21.
SwamyGPaceAQuahCHowardP. The Bicontact cementless primary total hip arthroplasty: long-term results. Int Orthop2012 May; 36(5): 915-20.
22.
DrobniewskiMBorowskiASynderMSibinskiM. Cementless total hip arthroplasty with BiCONTACT stem – go od results at long term of follow-up. Orthop Traumatol Rehabil2014 Jan; 16(1): 1-9.
23.
OchsUEingartnerCVolkmannROchsBGHuberCWellerS, et al. Prospective long-term follow-up of the cementless bicontact hip stem with plasmapore coating. Z orthop Unfall2007 Sep; 145(Suppl 1): 3-8.
24.
GanapathiMEvansSRobertsP. Strain pattern following surface replacement of the hip. Proc Inst Mech Eng H2008 Jan; 222(1): 13-8.
25.
CristofoliniLJuszczykMTaddeiFVicecontiM. Strain distribution in the proximal human femoral metaphysis. Proc Inst Mech Eng H2009 Apr; 223(3): 273-88.
