Top

International Orthopaedics

Published in:

01-07-2012 | Original Paper

Biomechanical reconstruction of the hip: comparison between modular short-stem hip arthroplasty and conventional total hip arthroplasty

Authors: Florian Schmidutz, Marc Beirer, Patrick Weber, Farhad Mazoochian, Andreas Fottner, Volkmar Jansson

Published in: International Orthopaedics | Issue 7/2012

Abstract

Purpose

Short-stem hip arthroplasty preserves femoral bone stock which includes the femoral neck. This implies that the stem has to follow the anatomy of the femoral neck. Therefore, it has been questioned whether biomechanical reconstruction of the hip can be safely achieved with SHA.

Methods

Biomechanical reconstruction of the hip was analysed for 50 modular short-stem hip arthroplasties (SHA) and compared to 50 conventional total hip arthroplasties (THA). Biomechanical parameters were analysed on pre- and postoperative pelvic overviews and compared to those of the contralateral side.

Results

The position of the acetabular cup (vertical and horizontal hip centre of rotation) changed slightly and was comparable for both groups. Horizontal femoral offset increased more in SHA (6.2 mm) than in THA (2.0 mm). Compared to the contralateral side it was significantly greater after SHA (+3.6 mm) but almost balanced after THA (−0.2 mm). Limb length increased with both procedures (8.0 mm SHA, 9.1 mm THA), but showed a significantly greater discrepancy after SHA (3.3 mm) as compared to THA (1.3 mm). According to the different implant designs, the stem-shaft axis showed a wider varus-valgus range for SHA (6.2° varus to 8.8° valgus) than for THA (2.6° varus to 3.3° valgus).

Conclusion

Horizontal femoral offset increased more with modular SHA than with conventional THA, but was within a beneficial range. Restoration of limb length appears more difficult in SHA and has a tendency to prolong limb length, which is probably related to the higher femoral resection level. This should be taken into consideration when considering SHA for a patient as well as during implantation.

Kiyama T, Naito M, Shinoda T, Maeyama A (2010) Hip abductor strengths after total hip arthroplasty via the lateral and posterolateral approaches. J Arthroplasty 25(1):76–80PubMedCrossRef

Asayama I, Chamnongkich S, Simpson KJ, Kinsey TL, Mahoney OM (2005) Reconstructed hip joint position and abductor muscle strength after total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 20(4):414–420PubMedCrossRef

McGrory BJ, Morrey BF, Cahalan TD, An KN, Cabanela ME (1995) Effect of femoral offset on range of motion and abductor muscle strength after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 77(6):865–869PubMed

Erceg M (2009) The influence of femoral head shift on hip biomechanics: additional parameters accounted. Int Orthop 33(1):95–100PubMedCrossRef

Bourne RB, Rorabeck CH (2002) Soft tissue balancing: the hip. J Arthroplasty 17(4 Suppl 1):17–22PubMedCrossRef

Little NJ, Busch CA, Gallagher JA, Rorabeck CH, Bourne RB (2009) Acetabular polyethylene wear and acetabular inclination and femoral offset. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467(11):2895–2900PubMedCrossRef

Lecerf G, Fessy MH, Philippot R, Massin P, Giraud F, Flecher X, Girard J, Mertl P, Marchetti E, Stindel E (2009) Femoral offset: anatomical concept, definition, assessment, implications for preoperative templating and hip arthroplasty. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 95(3):210–219PubMedCrossRef

Briem D, Schneider M, Bogner N, Botha N, Gebauer M, Gehrke T, Schwantes B (2011) Mid-term results of 155 patients treated with a collum femoris preserving (CFP) short stem prosthesis. Int Orthop 35(5):655–660PubMedCrossRef

Lerch M, von der Har-Tran A, Windhagen H, Behrens BA, Wefstaedt P, Stukenborg-Colsman CM (2011) Bone remodelling around the Metha short stem in total hip arthroplasty: a prospective dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry study. Int Orthop. Sep 21 [Epub ahead of print]

10.

Kim YH, Kim JS, Park JW, Joo JH (2011) Total hip replacement with a short metaphyseal-fitting anatomical cementless femoral component in patients aged 70 years or older. J Bone Joint Surg Br 93(5):587–592PubMedCrossRef

11.

Morrey BF, Adams RA, Kessler M (2000) A conservative femoral replacement for total hip arthroplasty. A prospective study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 82(7):952–958PubMedCrossRef

12.

Jerosch J, Grasselli C, Kothny PC, Litzkow D, Hennecke T (2011) Reproduction of the anatomy (offset, CCD, leg length) with a modern short stem hip design—a radiological study. Z Orthop Unfall. Apr 12 [Epub ahead of print]

13.

Confalonieri N, Manzotti A, Montironi F, Pullen C (2008) Leg length discrepancy, dislocation rate, and offset in total hip replacement using a short modular stem: navigation vs conventional freehand. Orthopedics 31(10 Suppl 1)

14.

Silva M, Lee KH, Heisel C, dela Rosa MA, Schmalzried TP (2004) The biomechanical results of total hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86-A(1):40–46PubMed

15.

Traina F, De Fine M, Tassinari E, Sudanese A, Calderoni PP, Toni A (2011) Modular neck prostheses in DDH patients: 11-year results. J Orthop Sci 16(1):14–20

16.

Sakalkale DP, Sharkey PF, Eng K, Hozack WJ, Rothman RH (2001) Effect of femoral component offset on polyethylene wear in total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 388:125–134PubMedCrossRef

17.

Yamaguchi T, Naito M, Asayama I, Ishiko T (2004) Total hip arthroplasty: the relationship between posterolateral reconstruction, abductor muscle strength, and femoral offset. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 12(2):164–167

18.

Bicanic G, Delimar D, Delimar M, Pecina M (2009) Influence of the acetabular cup position on hip load during arthroplasty in hip dysplasia. Int Orthop 33(2):397–402PubMedCrossRef

19.

Girard J, Lavigne M, Vendittoli PA, Roy AG (2006) Biomechanical reconstruction of the hip: a randomised study comparing total hip resurfacing and total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88(6):721–726PubMedCrossRef

20.

Loughead JM, Chesney D, Holland JP, McCaskie AW (2005) Comparison of offset in Birmingham hip resurfacing and hybrid total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87(2):163–166PubMedCrossRef

21.

Kamada S, Naito M, Nakamura Y, Kiyama T (2011) Hip abductor muscle strength after total hip arthroplasty with short stems. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 131(12):1723–1729

22.

Massin P, Geais L, Astoin E, Simondi M, Lavaste F (2000) The anatomic basis for the concept of lateralized femoral stems: a frontal plane radiographic study of the proximal femur. J Arthroplasty 15(1):93–101PubMedCrossRef

23.

Thien TM, Karrholm J (2010) Design-related risk factors for revision of primary cemented stems. Acta Orthop 81(4):407–412PubMedCrossRef

24.

Lazovic D, Dunai F, Zigan R (2010) The impact of navigation on a modular short stem prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg (Proceedings) 92-B (SUPP_IV):523–552 d

25.

Traina F, De Clerico M, Biondi F, Pilla F, Tassinari E, Toni A (2009) Sex differences in hip morphology: is stem modularity effective for total hip replacement? J Bone Joint Surg Am 91(Suppl 6):121–128PubMedCrossRef

26.

Traina F, De FM, Biondi F, Tassinari E, Galvani A, Toni A (2009) The influence of the centre of rotation on implant survival using a modular stem hip prosthesis. Int Orthop 33(6):1513–1518PubMedCrossRef

Title: Biomechanical reconstruction of the hip: comparison between modular short-stem hip arthroplasty and conventional total hip arthroplasty
Authors: Florian Schmidutz
Marc Beirer
Patrick Weber
Farhad Mazoochian
Andreas Fottner
Volkmar Jansson
Publication date: 01-07-2012
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: International Orthopaedics / Issue 7/2012
Print ISSN: 0341-2695
Electronic ISSN: 1432-5195
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-011-1477-2

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Biomechanical reconstruction of the hip: comparison between modular short-stem hip arthroplasty and conventional total hip arthroplasty

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 7/2012

The EOS™ imaging system and its uses in daily orthopaedic practice

Cartilage labelling for mechanical testing in T-peel configuration

Incidence of osteotomies around the knee for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: A 22-year population-based study

Cementation and interface analysis of early failure cases after hip-resurfacing arthroplasty

Total hip replacement in developmental dysplasia using an oval-shaped cementless press-fit cup

Comments on Reito et al.: Assessment of inter- and intra-observer reliability in the determination of radiographic version and inclination of the cup in metal-on-metal hip resurfacing