Top

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

Published in:

01-02-2011 | Symposium: Papers Presented at the Hip Society Meetings 2010

A Comparison of Two Implant Systems in Restoration of Hip Geometry in Arthroplasty

Authors: Michael J. Archibeck, MD, Tamara Cummins, RT(R)(ARRT), Joshua Carothers, MD, Daniel W. Junick, MD, Richard E. White Jr., MD

Published in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® | Issue 2/2011

Abstract

Background

Restoration of hip offset and leg length during THA is often limited by available implant geometries. The recent introduction of femoral components with a modular junction at the base of the neck (two modular junction components) has expanded the options to restore femoral offset and leg length.

Questions/purposes

We asked (1) whether a femoral component with two modular junctions would predict by templating more frequent restoration of preoperative offset and leg length abnormalities than one with single modular junctions; and (2) how our use of these options compared with national sales data.

Patients and Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the preoperative templating data in 100 primary THAs using single modular junction implants with only a neutral version stem and 100 THAs using two modular junction implants. We compared the frequency with which the desired leg length and offset were completely restored by preoperative templating in the two groups.

Results

Offset and leg lengths were restored to within 1 mm in 85% of cases with two modular junction implants and 60% of cases with single modular junction implants. An anteverted or a retroverted neck was used in 25% of cases with the two modular junction stems. The national sales data revealed femoral neck components with version were used in 28% of cases.

Conclusions

The use of a femoral component with two modular junctions resulted in more frequent ability to restore femoral offset and leg length than a single modular junction. The advantage of clinical flexibility should be tempered by the potential concerns of prosthetic mechanical failure (which has been reported in another implant system with two modular junctions), increased third-body wear and corrosive debris, and increased prosthetic cost.

Level of Evidence

Level II, prognostic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Bourne RB, Rorabeck CH. Soft tissue balancing of the hip. J Arthroplasty. 2002;17(Suppl 1):17–22.CrossRefPubMed

Heep H, Xu J, Kauther M, Loeer FA. Preoperative planning and reconstruction in primary total hip arthroplasty with and without modular necks [in German]. Z Orthop Unfall. 2010;148:180–184.CrossRefPubMed

Hozack WJ, Austin MS, Sharkey PF, Rothman RH. Stability and leg length equality in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2003;18:88–90.CrossRefPubMed

Iorio R, Healy WL, Warren PD, Appleby D. Lateral trochanteric pain following primary total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2006:21:233–236.CrossRefPubMed

Konyves A, Bannister GC. The importance of leg length discrepancy after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87:155–157.CrossRefPubMed

Malik A, Maheshwari A, Dorr LD. Impingement with total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:1832–1842.CrossRefPubMed

Maloney WJ, Keeney JA. Leg length discrepancy after total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2004;19(Suppl 1):108–110.CrossRefPubMed

Maruyama M, Feinberg JR, Capello WN, D’Antonio JA. Morphologic features of the acetabulum and femur: anteversion angle and implant positioning. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;393:52–65.CrossRefPubMed

Sathappan SS, Ginat D, Patel V, Walsh M, Jaffe WL, DiCesare PE. Effect of anesthesia type on leg length discrepancy after total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2008;23:203–209.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Shon WY, Baldini T, Peterson MG, Wright TM, Salvati EA. Impingement in total hip arthroplasty: a study of retrieved acetabular components. J Arthroplasty. 2005;20:427–435.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Sugano N, Noble PC, Kamaric E. Predicting the position of the femoral head center. J Arthroplasty. 1999;14:102–107.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Viceconti M, Baleani M, Squarzoni S, Ton IA. Fretting wear in a modular neck prosthesis. J Biomed Mater Res. 1997;35:207–216.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Wright Medical Technology, Inc. A Safety Alert. The Use of Modular Necks in Total Hip Replacement. Arlington, TN: Wright Medical Technology, Inc; 2008.

Title: A Comparison of Two Implant Systems in Restoration of Hip Geometry in Arthroplasty
Authors: Michael J. Archibeck, MD
Tamara Cummins, RT(R)(ARRT)
Joshua Carothers, MD
Daniel W. Junick, MD
Richard E. White Jr., MD
Publication date: 01-02-2011
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® / Issue 2/2011
Print ISSN: 0009-921X
Electronic ISSN: 1528-1132
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-010-1678-9

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

A Comparison of Two Implant Systems in Restoration of Hip Geometry in Arthroplasty

Abstract

Background

Questions/purposes

Patients and Methods

Results

Conclusions

Level of Evidence

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Questions/purposes

Patients and Methods

Results

Conclusions

Level of Evidence

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 2/2011

Improving Cup Positioning Using a Mechanical Navigation Instrument

Hard-on-Hard Total Hip Impingement Causes Extreme Contact Stress Concentrations

Increased Antibiotic Release from a Bone Cement Containing Bacterial Cellulose

The Otto Aufranc Award: Enhanced Biocompatibility of Stainless Steel Implants by Titanium Coating and Microarc Oxidation

Letter to the Editor: Use of Morphometry to Quantify Osteolysis after Total Hip Arthroplasty

The Frank Stinchfield Award: The Impact of Socioeconomic Factors on Outcome After THA: A Prospective, Randomized Study