Literature DB >> 26795255

Tapered vs Cylindrical Stem Fixation in a Model of Femoral Bone Deficiency in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty.

Robert D Russell1, William Pierce2, Michael H Huo3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Distal fixation achieved with a tapered stem design has demonstrated favorable clinical results in revision total hip arthroplasty in the setting of severe bone defects. However, stem subsidence is common with this stem design.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to compare the initial fixation stability of a tapered stem design to a fully porous-coated cylindrical stem design in a model of severe femoral bone deficiency.
METHODS: Tapered and cylindrical stems (n = 8) were implanted into a model femur with progressively shorter segments for fixation (9, 6, or 3 cm). The stems were axially loaded, and the force to produce subsidence was recorded.
RESULTS: Average loads to produce 150 μm of displacement with a 3-cm segment were higher for the tapered stem (393 N vs 221 N, P < .01). No difference was observed in the 6- or 9-cm models. Average loads to produce failure (>4-mm subsidence) were also higher for tapered stems with a 3-cm segment (1574 N vs 500 N, P < .0001). A regression analysis determined the minimum segment length of 1.5-2.5 cm to obtain stable fixation with a tapered stem design (R(2) = 0.78, P < .001).
CONCLUSIONS: Tapered stems required higher loads to produce subsidence than cylindrical stems in a revision THA model. Revision tapered stems require a minimum intact segment of 1.5-2.5 cm to obtain adequate initial fixation stability. Revision tapered stems have superior initial fixation stability to cylindrical stems in the setting of severe bone loss.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  cylindrical stems; femoral fixation; revision THA; subsidence; tapered stems

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26795255     DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2015.12.008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Arthroplasty        ISSN: 0883-5403            Impact factor:   4.757


  5 in total

Review 1.  Femoral revision with primary cementless stems: a systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Luca Cavagnaro; Matteo Formica; Marco Basso; Andrea Zanirato; Stefano Divano; Lamberto Felli
Journal:  Musculoskelet Surg       Date:  2017-07-01

2.  Extended trochanteric osteotomy (ETO) and fluted tapered modular stems in revision hip arthroplasty. Does ETO integrity or consolidation, really matter?

Authors:  Germán Garabano; Alan Maximiliano Gessara; Cesar Angel Pesciallo; Leonel Perez Alamino; Hernán Del Sel
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2021-02-09

3.  Comparison of cylindrical and tapered stem designs for femoral revision hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Yu Zhang; Ye Zhang; Jian-Ning Sun; Zi-Jian Hua; Xiang-Yang Chen; Shuo Feng
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2020-06-29       Impact factor: 2.362

4.  Technical Note for Transfemoral Implantation of Tapered Revision Stems. The Advantage to Stay Short.

Authors:  Bernd Fink
Journal:  Arthroplast Today       Date:  2021-04-24

5.  Comparison of modular and nonmodular tapered fluted titanium stems in femoral revision hip arthroplasty: a minimum 6-year follow-up study.

Authors:  Shuo Feng; Yu Zhang; Yu-Hang Bao; Zhi Yang; Guo-Chun Zha; Xiang-Yang Chen
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-08-13       Impact factor: 4.379

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.