Top

Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery

Published in:

01-07-2003 | Original Article

A comparative clinical outcome evaluation of smooth (10–13 year results) versus rough surface finish (5–8 year results) in an otherwise identically designed cemented titanium alloy stem

Authors: F. Hinrichs, M. Kuhl, U. Boudriot, P. Griss

Published in: Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery | Issue 6/2003

Abstract

Background

We retrospectively compared the influence of surface finish with respect to the long-term durability of a cemented titanium alloy stem of the same design but different surface finish.

Methods

From 1984 to 1994, the stem was made of a titanium-aluminum-vanadium alloy. A total of 201 patients with 220 smooth stems (mean follow-up 11 years and 4 months) out of 612 implanted between 1984 and 1987 and 319 patients with 343 rough stems (mean follow-up 5 years and 10 months) out of 812 implanted between 1991 and 1993 could be reviewed clinically and radiologically for comparison. The average age of the patients with the smooth stem was 58.1 years and of the patients with the rough stem, 62.2 years. In both groups, 35% of patients were male and 65% female.

Results

The mean Merle d'Aubigné hip score increased from 10.5 to 16.0 points in the smooth stem group and from 11.0 to 16.9 points in the rough stem group. The distribution of radiolucent lines, according to the zones of Gruen, was similar in both groups. The smooth stem required revision in 18 cases after a mean follow-up of 11 years and 4 months and the rough stem in 30 cases after a mean follow-up of 5 years and 10 months. The survival analysis (Kaplan-Meier) revealed 95.4% survival after 13 years for the smooth femoral component and 76.7% survival after 8 years for the rough femoral component.

Conclusions

The implantation of titanium alloy stems with a rough surface finish cannot be recommended because of its high aseptic loosening rate.

Bowditch M, Villar R (2001) Is titanium so bad? Medium-term outcome of cemented titanium stems. J. Bone Joint Surg Br 83:680–685CrossRef

Brooker AF, Bowerman JW, Robinson RA, Riley LH Jr (1973) Ectopic ossification following total hip replacement. Incidence and a method of classification. J Bone Joint Surg Am 55:1629–1632PubMed

Callaghan JJ, Johnston RC (1997) Cemented arthroplasty yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Orthopedics 20:769–770PubMed

Callaghan JJ, Sporer SM, Fornest E, Johnston RC, Goetz DD (1998) Does surface finish affect the long-term durability of the femoral component in cemented THA? Meeting Hip Society

Collis DK, Mohler CG (1998) Loosening rates and bone lysis with rough finished and polished stems. Clin Orthop 355:113–122PubMed

Eingartner C, Volkmann R, Kummel K, Weller S (1997) Low loosening rate of a cemented titanium straight shaft prosthesis in long term follow-up. Swiss Surg 3:49–54PubMed

Eingartner C, Ihm A, Mauer F, Volkmann R, Weise K, Weller S (2002) Gute langfristige Nachuntersuchungsergebnisse einer zementierten Titan-Geradschaftprothese. Unfallchirurg 105:804–810CrossRef

Emerson RH, Head WC, Emerson CB, Rosenfeldt W, Higgins LL (2002) A comparison of cemented and cementless titanium femoral components used for primary total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 17:584–591CrossRefPubMed

Grigoris P, Hamblen D (1998) The control of new prosthetic implants. J Bone Joint Surg Br 80:941–943CrossRefPubMed

10.

Gruen TA, McNeice GM, Amstutz HC (1979) 'Modes of failure' of cemented stem-type femoral components: a radiographic analysis of loosening. Clin Orthop 141:17–27PubMed

11.

Hinrichs F, Boudriot U, Griss P (2000) 10-Jahres-Ergebnisse mit einem zementierten feingestrahlten Titan-Aluminum-Vanadium Hüftendoprothesenschaft. Z Orthop 138:52–56CrossRefPubMed

12.

Howie DW, Middelton RG, Costi K (1998) Loosening of matt and polished cemented femoral stems. J Bone Joint Surg Br 80:573–576CrossRefPubMed

13.

Huiskes R (1998) Migration, stem shape, and surface finish in cemented total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 355:103–112

14.

Jacobson SA, Ivarson I, Djerf K, Wahlström O (1995) Stem loosening more common with ITH than Lubinus prosthesis. Acta Orthop Scand 66:425–431PubMed

15.

Jergesen HE, Karlen JW (2002) Clinical outcome in total hip arthroplasty using a cemented titanium femoral prosthesis. J Arthroplasty 17:592–599CrossRefPubMed

16.

Kelman GJ, Krakauer JD, Adams SA, Colwell CW (1994) Two- to five-year follow-up of 100 total hip arthroplasties using DF-80 implants. Orthop Rev 23:420–425PubMed

17.

Lichtinger TK, Schürmann N, Müller RT (2000) Frühlockerungen eines zementierten Hüftendoprothesenstiels aus Titan. Unfallchirurg 103:956–960PubMed

18.

Ling RS (1992) Clinical experience with primary cemented total hip arthroplasty. Chir Organi Mov 77:373–381PubMed

19.

Massoud SN, Hunter JB, Holdsworth BJ, Wallace WA, Juliusson R (1997) Early femoral loosening in one design of cemented hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 79:603–609PubMed

20.

Maurer TB, Ochsner PE, Schwarzer G (2001) Increased loosening of cemented straight stem prostheses made from titanium alloys. An analysis and comparison with prostheses made of cobalt-chromium-nickel ally. Int Orthop 25:77–80PubMed

21.

Meding JB, Herbst SA, Keating EM, Faris PM, Ritter MA (1997) Radiographic analysis of a cemented titanium alloy femoral component. Clin Orthop 334:184–189PubMed

22.

Merle d`Aubigné R, Postel M (1954) Functional results of arthroplasty with acrylic prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 36:451–475

23.

Middleton RG, Howie DW, Costi K, Sharpe P (1998) Effects of design changes on cemented tapered femoral stem fixation. Clin Orthop 355:47–56PubMed

24.

Rader CP, Hendrich C, Löw S, Walther M, Eulert J (2000) 5- bis 8-Jahres Ergebnisse mit der Müller-Geradschaftprothese (zementierter TiAlNb-Schaft). Unfallchirurg 103:846–852CrossRefPubMed

25.

Robinson RP, Lovell TP, Green TM, Bailey GA (1989) Early femoral component loosening in DF-80 total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 4:55–64PubMed

26.

Rockborn P, Olsson SS (1993) Loosening and bone resorption in Exeter hip arthroplasties. Review at a minimum of five years J Bone Joint Surg Br 75:865–868

27.

Sarmiento A, Gruen TA (1985) Radiographic analysis of a low-modulus titanium-alloy femoral total hip component. J Bone Joint Surg Am 67:48–56PubMed

28.

Schöll E, Eggli S, Ganz R (2000) Osteolysis in cemented titanium alloy hip prosthesis. J Arthroplasty 15:570–575

29.

Semlitsch M, Windler M, Streicher RM (1991) Eignung von Titanlegierungen für zementierte Hüftprothesenschäfte. Die Hüftendoprothetik, Vol 2. Stahl. Verlag Ecomed, Landsberg

30.

Sporer SM, Callaghan JJ, Olejniczak JP, Goetz DD, Johnston RC (1998) Hybrid total hip arthroplasty in patients under the age of fifty: a five- to ten-year follow-up. J Arthroplasty 13:485–491PubMed

31.

Tompkins GS, Lachiewicz PF, DeMasi R (1994) A prospective study of a titanium femoral component for cemented total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 9:623–630PubMed

32.

Unwin AJ (1993) Early failure of titanium alloy femoral components: a quantitative radiological analysis of osteolytic and granulomatous change. J R Soc Med 86:460–463PubMed

33.

Verdonschot N (1996) Subsidence of THA stems due to acrylic cement creep is extremely sensitive to interface friction. J Biomech 29:1569–1575CrossRefPubMed

34.

Verdonschot N (1997) Acrylic cement creeps but does not allow much subsidence of femoral stems. J Bone Joint Surg Br 79:665–669CrossRefPubMed

35.

Verdonschot N, Tanck E, Huiskes R (1998) Effects of prosthesis surface roughness on the failure process of cemented hip implants after stem-cement debounding. J Biomed Mater Res 42:554–559CrossRefPubMed

36.

Wagner M, Wagner H (1997) Vergleich der Ergebnisse von zementierten Hüftendoprothesenschäften aus Titan und Kobalt-Chrom-Legierungen. Orthop Praxis 33:589–593

37.

Willert HG, Brobäck LG, Buchhorn GH, Jensen PH, Köster G, Lang I, Ochsner P, Schenk R (1996) Crevice corrosion of cemented titanium alloy stems in total hip replacements. Clin Orthop 333:51–75PubMed

38.

Witt JD, Swann M (1991) Metal wear and tissue response in failed titanium alloy THR. J Bone Joint Surg Br 73:559–563PubMed

Title: A comparative clinical outcome evaluation of smooth (10–13 year results) versus rough surface finish (5–8 year results) in an otherwise identically designed cemented titanium alloy stem
Authors: F. Hinrichs
M. Kuhl
U. Boudriot
P. Griss
Publication date: 01-07-2003
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery / Issue 6/2003
Print ISSN: 0936-8051
Electronic ISSN: 1434-3916
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-003-0515-y

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

A comparative clinical outcome evaluation of smooth (10–13 year results) versus rough surface finish (5–8 year results) in an otherwise identically designed cemented titanium alloy stem

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 6/2003

Treatment of distal radioulnar joint disorders with a modified Sauvé-Kapandji procedure: long-term outcome with special attention to the DASH Questionnaire

Limb salvage after subtotal supramalleolar amputation by initial shortening followed by tibial lengthening

The influence of walking speed on kinetic and kinematic parameters in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip using a force-instrumented treadmill and standardised gait speeds

Monteggia type I equivalent lesion: diaphyseal ulna and radius fractures with a posterior elbow dislocation in an adult

The Artek cup for total hip replacement of dysplastic hip joints

Bilateral luxatio erecta humeri