» Articles » PMID: 36367405

Differences Between Two Sequential Uncemented Stem Sizes in Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Comparative Biomechanical Study and Potential Clinical Implications

Overview
Journal SICOT J
Publisher EDP Sciences
Specialty Orthopedics
Date 2022 Nov 11
PMID 36367405
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Early failure of uncemented femoral stems associated with incorrect sizing is a known postoperative complication. Surgeons are often faced with the question of whether an uncemented stem of adequate stability or a larger-sized stem should be implanted, especially when the proximal femoral cancellous bone is adequate. The biomechanical effect of sub-optimal stem sizing in the femur remains unclear. This study investigated the mechanical behaviour of two sequential sized uncemented stems of the same type.

Methods: Six laboratory models of synthetic non-osteoporotic femora were randomly divided into two groups and implanted with either a nominal or oversized uncemented hydroxyapatite-coated nonporous titanium collarless stem. Stiffness, uniaxial strain, and pattern of strain distribution were measured under an anatomical one-legged stance.

Results: Oversized stems demonstrated a higher overall stiffness compared to nominal; however, this was not statistically significant. The nominal stem showed a higher strain in the neck and the proximal medial diaphyseal region. The oversized stem showed higher strains in the distal region around the implant tip.

Conclusion: Opting to use a larger stem may potentially increase primary stability, thus allowing safer early mobility. However, higher stiffness may lead to stress shielding, bone loss, and thigh pain in the long term. In addition, strains in the diaphysis and the tip of the stem may predispose to periprosthetic fractures, especially in osteoporotic bones, making this a relatable aspect for users and biomechanical loading. Given the wide range of complex factors that need to be considered when choosing stem size in uncemented THA surgery, this study's results should be interpreted cautiously.

Citing Articles

The Migration Pattern of a Short-Tapered Femoral Stem Correlates with the Occurrence of Cortical Hypertrophies: A 10-Year Longitudinal Study Using Ein Bild Röntgen Analyse-Femoral Component Analysis.

Freitag T, Fuchs M, Friedrich D, Bieger R, Reichel H, Oltmanns M J Clin Med. 2024; 13(12).

PMID: 38930145 PMC: 11205188. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13123616.


The effect of a collar on primary stability of standard and undersized cementless hip stems: a biomechanical study.

Kistler M, Steinbruck A, Schmidutz F, Paulus A, Holzapfel B, Woiczinski M Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2024; 144(6):2873-2879.

PMID: 38762654 PMC: 11211124. DOI: 10.1007/s00402-024-05374-7.

References
1.
Hoskins W, Bingham R, Lorimer M, de Steiger R . The Effect of Size for a Hydroxyapatite-Coated Cementless Implant on Component Revision in Total Hip Arthroplasty: An Analysis of 41,265 Stems. J Arthroplasty. 2019; 35(4):1074-1078. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2019.10.060. View

2.
Magill P, Hill J, OBrien S, Stevenson M, Machenaud A, Beverland D . Observed effect of femoral component undersizing and a collarless design in the development of radiolucent lines in cementless total hip arthroplasty. Arthroplast Today. 2020; 6(1):99-103. PMC: 7083744. DOI: 10.1016/j.artd.2019.11.009. View

3.
Wang K, Kenanidis E, Gamie Z, Suleman K, Miodownik M, Avadi M . The impact of stem fixation method on Vancouver Type B1 periprosthetic femoral fracture management. SICOT J. 2022; 8:1. PMC: 8734436. DOI: 10.1051/sicotj/2021064. View

4.
Moazen M, Mak J, Etchels L, Jin Z, Wilcox R, Jones A . Periprosthetic femoral fracture--a biomechanical comparison between Vancouver type B1 and B2 fixation methods. J Arthroplasty. 2013; 29(3):495-500. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2013.08.010. View

5.
Faisal M, Thomas G, Young S . Subsidence of the Corail femoral component in the elderly. A retrospective radiological review. Hip Int. 2011; 21(3):325-9. DOI: 10.5301/HIP.2011.8409. View