Top

Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery

Published in:

01-01-2018 | Hip Arthroplasty

Anchoring and resulting primary stability of a kinked compared to a straight uncemented femoral stem

Authors: Markus Heinecke, Fabian Rathje, Frank Layher, Georg Matziolis

Published in: Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery | Issue 1/2018

Abstract

Introduction

The number of revision hip arthroplasties being performed is growing and implantation of a cementless stem has become established as the gold standard. For producing a primary stability, the press-fit procedure is the method of choice, but also can be achieved by multiple-point impactions. Specific femoral stems should follow the anatomical shape and provide a more extensive anchorage. The objective of this study was to evaluate the type, localization of the impaction and resulting primary stability of two different femoral revision stem designs (kinked vs. straight) after implantation via an endofemoral approach in the case of more extensive defects of the proximal femur.

Materials and methods

Cementless stems of two different designs were implanted in synthetic femurs. The specimens were analyzed by CT and tested considering axial/torsional stiffness and migration resistance in a servohydraulic testing machine.

Results

The present data do not show any significant differences between the two endofemorally implanted conical stems in contact area or in biomechanics with regard to migration and axial or torsional stiffness, despite having different designs.

Conclusions

The location, type and length of the stem anchorage are not only influenced by the kinked or straight design, but in particular also by the surgical approach. Also in the case of an extensive proximal bone defect, in the endofemoral approach, both a conical and a three-point anchorage occur. Here, the length of the conical anchorage determines the primary stability and should be at least 55 mm.

Abendschein W (2003) Periprosthetic femur fractures—a growing epidemic. Am J Orthop 32(9 Suppl):34–36PubMed

Lindahl H (2007) Epidemiology of periprosthetic femur fracture around a total hip arthroplasty. Injury 38(6):651–654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2007.02.048 CrossRefPubMed

Wähnert D, Schröder R, Schulze M et al (2014) Biomechanical comparison of two angular stable plate constructions for periprosthetic femur fracture fixation. Int Orthop 38(1):47–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-013-2113-0 CrossRefPubMed

Morrey BF, Kavanagh BF (1992) Complications with revision of the femoral component of total hip arthroplasty. Comparison between cemented and uncemented techniques. J Arthroplast 7(1):71–79CrossRef

Lewallen DG, Berry DJ (1998) Periprosthetic fracture of the femur after total hip arthroplasty: treatment and results to date. Instr Course Lect 47:243–249PubMed

Kavanagh BF (1992) Femoral fractures associated with total hip arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am 23(2):249–257PubMed

Skutek M, Bourne RB, Mac Donald SJ (2006) International epidemiology of revision THR. Curr Orthop 20:157–161CrossRef

Faschingbauer M, Kessler S, HJürgens C (2014) Periprosthetic fractures in enclosed total hip arthroplasty. Trauma Berufskrankh 16(4):349–353CrossRef

Wirtz DC, Niethard FU (1997) Etiology, diagnosis and therapy of aseptic hip prosthesis loosening—a status assessment (Ursachen, Diagnostik und Therapie der aseptischen Huftendoprothesenlockerung–eine Standortbestimmung). Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 135(4):270–280. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2008-1039388 CrossRefPubMed

10.

Paprosky WG, Greidanus NV, Antoniou J (1999) Minimum 10-year-results of extensively porous-coated stems in revision hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 369:230–242CrossRef

11.

Pilliar RM, Lee JM, Maniatopoulos C (1986) Observations on the effect of movement on bone ingrowth into porous-surfaced implants. Clin Orthop Relat Res 208:108–113

12.

Engh CA, O’Connor D, Jasty M et al (1992) Quantification of implant micromotion, strain shielding, and bone resorption with porous-coated anatomic medullary locking femoral prostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res 285:13–29

13.

Diehl P, Haenle M, Bergschmidt P et al (2010) Zementfreie Hüftendoprothetik: eine aktuelle Übersicht/Cementless total hip arthroplasty: a review (Cementless total hip arthroplasty: a review). Biomed Tech (Berl) 55(5):251–264. https://doi.org/10.1515/BMT.2010.037 CrossRef

14.

Mai KT, Verioti CA, Casey K et al (2010) Cementless femoral fixation in total hip arthroplasty. Am J Orthop 39(3):126–130PubMed

15.

Fink B, Fuerst M, Hahn M et al (2005) Principles of fixation of the cementless modular revision stem Revitan (Fixationsprinzipien des zementlosen modularen Huftrevisionsschaftes Revitan. Eine anatomische Studie). Unfallchirurg 108(12):1029–1032. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00113-005-0990-4 (1034–1037) CrossRefPubMed

16.

Sieber HP, Le Bèguec P (2001) Einsatz des PFM-R-Schaftes bei Revisionseingriffen. In: Perka C, Zippel H (eds) Revisionsendoprothetik des Hüftgelenkes. Schaftrekonstruktion und perioperatives management. Einhorn, Reinbeck, pp 174–184

17.

Fink B, Grossmann A, Schubring S et al (2007) A modified transfemoral approach using modular cementless revision stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res 462:105–114. https://doi.org/10.1097/BLO.0b013e3180986170 CrossRefPubMed

18.

Wirtz DC, Heller KD, Holzwarth U et al (2000) A modular femoral implant for uncemented stem revision in THR. Int Orthop 24(3):134–138CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Rodriguez JA, Fada R, Murphy SB et al (2009) Two-year to five-year follow-up of femoral defects in femoral revision treated with the link MP modular stem. J Arthroplast 24(5):751–758. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2008.09.011 CrossRef

20.

Meneghini RM, Hallab NJ, Berger RA et al. (2006) Stem diameter and rotational stability in revision total hip arthroplasty: a biomechanical analysis. J Orthop Surg Res 1:5. https://doi.org/10.1186/1749-799X-1-5 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Bougherara H, Zdero R, Shah S et al (2010) A biomechanical assessment of modular and monoblock revision hip implants using FE analysis and strain gage measurements. J Orthop Surg Res 5:34. https://doi.org/10.1186/1749-799X-5-34 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Zdero R, Walker R, Waddell JP et al (2008) Biomechanical evaluation of periprosthetic femoral fracture fixation. J B Jt Surg Am 90(5):1068–1077. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.F.01561 CrossRef

23.

Heiner AD (2008) Structural properties of fourth-generation composite femurs and tibias. J Biomech 41(15):3282–3284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2008.08.013 CrossRefPubMed

24.

Wagner H, Wagner M (1993) Femur revision prosthesis (Femur-Revisionsprothese). Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 131(6):574–577. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2008-1040074 CrossRefPubMed

25.

Engh CA, Bobyn JD, Glassman AH (1987) Porous-coated hip replacement. The factors governing bone ingrowth, stress shielding, and clinical results. J B Jt Surg Br 69(1):45–55

26.

Lester DK, Campbell P, Ehya A et al (1998) Assessment of press-fit hip femoral components retrieved at autopsy. Orthopedics 21(1):27–33PubMed

Title: Anchoring and resulting primary stability of a kinked compared to a straight uncemented femoral stem
Authors: Markus Heinecke
Fabian Rathje
Frank Layher
Georg Matziolis
Publication date: 01-01-2018
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery / Issue 1/2018
Print ISSN: 0936-8051
Electronic ISSN: 1434-3916
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-017-2833-5

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Anchoring and resulting primary stability of a kinked compared to a straight uncemented femoral stem

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

The impact of canal flare index on leg length discrepancy after total hip arthroplasty

Acetabular overcoverage in the horizontal plane: an underdiagnosed trigger of early hip arthritis. A CT scan study in young adults

Maximum lifetime body mass index is the appropriate predictor of knee and hip osteoarthritis

The neurological outcome of radiotherapy versus surgery in patients with metastatic spinal cord compression presenting with myelopathy

Which factors are independent predictors of early recovery of mobility in the older adults’ population after hip fracture? A cohort prognostic study

Evidence-based concepts for prevention of knee and ACL injuries. 2017 guidelines of the ligament committee of the German Knee Society (DKG)