Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2018 Apr;33(4):1126-1132.
doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2017.11.026. Epub 2017 Nov 21.

Comparative Analysis of the Reconstruction of Individual Hip Anatomy Using 3 Different Cementless Stem Designs in Patients With Primary Hip Osteoarthritis

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Comparative Analysis of the Reconstruction of Individual Hip Anatomy Using 3 Different Cementless Stem Designs in Patients With Primary Hip Osteoarthritis

Moritz M Innmann et al. J Arthroplasty. 2018 Apr.

Abstract

Background: We questioned whether there was a radiographic difference in hip geometry reconstruction and implant fixation between 3 different cementless stem design concepts in patients with primary end-stage hip osteoarthritis.

Methods: We retrospectively evaluated the preoperative and postoperative radiographs by 2 independent and blinded reviewers in a series of 264 consecutive patients who had received either a straight double-tapered stem with 3 offset options (group A), a straight double-tapered stem with 2 shape options and modular necks (group B), and a bone-preserving curved tapered stem with 4 offset options (group C). The following parameters were assessed: acetabular, femoral and hip offset (HO), center of rotation height, leg length difference (LLD), and the endosteal fit of stem in the proximal femur (canal fill index). Group comparisons were performed using a one-way analysis of variance and subsequent pairwise comparisons (t-test).

Results: Postoperatively, HO could be equally restored with all 3 stem designs (P = .079). The postoperative LLD was smaller in group C compared to group A (0.8 mm [standard deviation, 3.2] vs 2.6 mm [standard deviation, 4.5], P = .002). Best combined reconstruction of HO and LLD could be achieved with the short curved stem by junior and senior surgeons (HO: -2.0 and -2.1 mm; LLD: 1.9 and 0.7 mm, respectively). The proximal and mid-height canal fill indexes were higher in groups B and C compared to group A, indicating a better metaphyseal and diaphyseal fit in the proximal femur (both P < .001).

Conclusion: All 3 cementless stem designs allowed for good hip geometry reconstruction. Multiple shape and offset options allowed for a better metaphyseal stem fit and offered minor clinical advantages for leg length reconstruction. Modular necks did not provide reconstructive advantages in patients with primary hip osteoarthritis.

Keywords: anatomic reconstruction; design; hip geometry; level IV; primary cementless total hip arthroplasty; retrospective diagnostic study; stem.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources