Literature DB >> 28488162

Can the metaphyseal anchored Metha short stem safely be revised with a standard CLS stem? A biomechanical analysis.

Shuang G Yan1,2, Matthias Woiczinski1, Tobias F Schmidutz1,3, Patrick Weber1, Alexander C Paulus1, Arnd Steinbrück1, Volkmar Jansson1, Florian Schmidutz4,5.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Short stem total hip arthroplasty (SHA) has gained increasing popularity as it conserves bone stock and is supposed to allow revision with a conventional stem. However, no study has evaluated whether the revision of a SHA with a standard total hip arthroplasty (THA) stem provides sufficient primary stability to allow osseous integration.
METHODS: A neck preserving SHA (Metha) and a standard THA (CLS) stem were implanted into six composite femurs respectively and dynamically loaded (300-1700 N, 1 Hz). Primary stability was evaluated by three dimensional-micromotions (3D micro motion) at five points of the interface. Then, a revision scenario was created by removing the SHA and using the same CLS stem as a revision implant (CLS-revision group), with subsequent evaluation of the 3D micro motion according to the primary CLS stem.
RESULTS: The 3D micro motion pattern significantly differed in the primary situation between the short and the standard stem. The highest 3D micro motion were registered proximally for the Metha and distally for the CLS stem. Revising the Metha with a CLS stem revealed a bony defect at the calcar. However, the 3D micro motion of the CLS-revision group were not significant higher compared to those of the primary CLS stem.
CONCLUSION: Our results show, that SHA (Metha) and standard THA (CLS) provide a good primary stability, however with different pattern of anchorage. The CLS stem reached a similar stability in this revision scenario as the CLS in the primary situation, wherefore it can be assumed that in uncomplicated revisions the Metha short stem can safely be revised with a CLS standard stem.

Entities:  

Keywords:  3D; Anchorage; Initial fixation; Micromotion; SHA; Three dimensional

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28488162     DOI: 10.1007/s00264-017-3497-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Orthop        ISSN: 0341-2695            Impact factor:   3.075


  25 in total

1.  Biomechanical evaluation of two types of short-stemmed hip prostheses compared to the trust plate prosthesis by three-dimensional measurement of micromotions.

Authors:  Andreas Fottner; Markus Schmid; Christof Birkenmaier; Farhad Mazoochian; Wolfgang Plitz; Jansson Volkmar
Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 2.063

2.  Fixation of the shorter cementless GTS™ stem: biomechanical comparison between a conventional and an innovative implant design.

Authors:  J Nadorf; M Thomsen; S Gantz; R Sonntag; J P Kretzer
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2014-02-13       Impact factor: 3.067

Review 3.  10-year experience with short stem total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Gabriela von Lewinski; Thilo Floerkemeier
Journal:  Orthopedics       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 1.390

4.  Hip contact forces and gait patterns from routine activities.

Authors:  G Bergmann; G Deuretzbacher; M Heller; F Graichen; A Rohlmann; J Strauss; G N Duda
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 2.712

5.  Survivorship of the cementless Spotorno femoral component in patients under 50 years of age at a mean follow-up of 18.4 years.

Authors:  J E Biemond; S Venkatesan; G G van Hellemondt
Journal:  Bone Joint J       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 5.082

6.  Blood loss and transfusion rate in short stem hip arthroplasty. A comparative study.

Authors:  Josef Hochreiter; Wilfried Hejkrlik; Katja Emmanuel; Wolfgang Hitzl; Reinhold Ortmaier
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2016-12-10       Impact factor: 3.075

7.  Observations on the effect of movement on bone ingrowth into porous-surfaced implants.

Authors:  R M Pilliar; J M Lee; C Maniatopoulos
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1986-07       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 8.  Short bone-conserving stems in cementless hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Harpal S Khanuja; Samik Banerjee; Deepak Jain; Robert Pivec; Michael A Mont
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2014-10-15       Impact factor: 5.284

Review 9.  Performance of the CLS Spotorno uncemented stem in the third decade after implantation.

Authors:  F R Evola; G Evola; A Graceffa; A Sessa; V Pavone; L Costarella; G Sessa; S Avondo
Journal:  Bone Joint J       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 5.082

Review 10.  Short-stem prostheses in primary total hip arthroplasty: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Shao-Chuan Huo; Fan Wang; Lu-Jue Dong; Wei Wei; Jing-Qi Zeng; Hong-Xing Huang; Qing-Min Han; Rui-Qi Duan
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 1.889

View more
  11 in total

1.  Citations, non-citations and visibility of International Orthopaedics in 2017.

Authors:  Andreas F Mavrogenis; Andrew Quaile; Marko Pećina; Marius M Scarlat
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2018-11       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  Fourteen-year experience with short cemented stems in total hip replacement.

Authors:  Nicola Santori; Francesco Falez; Domenico Potestio; Francesco Saverio Santori
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2018-11-08       Impact factor: 3.075

3.  Femoral neck preservation with a short hip stem produced with powder manufacturing: mid-term results of a consecutive case series.

Authors:  Marco Schiraldi; Manuel Bondi; Lodovico Renzi Brivio
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2019-01-28

4.  Short versus conventional stem in cementless total hip arthroplasty : An evidence-based approach with registry data of mid-term survival.

Authors:  Arnd Steinbrück; Alexander W Grimberg; Johanna Elliott; Oliver Melsheimer; Volkmar Jansson
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2021-03-05       Impact factor: 1.087

5.  Can hip resurfacing be safely revised with short-stem total hip arthroplasty? A case series of six patients.

Authors:  Marcel Coutandin; Yama Afghanyar; Philipp Drees; Jens Dargel; Philipp Rehbein; Karl Philipp Kutzner
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2021-03-26

6.  Long-term outcomes of cementless femoral stem revision with the Wagner cone prosthesis.

Authors:  Kyung-Soon Park; Sheng-Yu Jin; Jun-Hyuk Lim; Taek-Rim Yoon
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2021-06-11       Impact factor: 2.359

7.  Comparisons of the surface micromotions of cementless femoral prosthesis in the horizontal and vertical levels: a network analysis of biomechanical studies.

Authors:  Bomin Wang; Qinghu Li; Jinlei Dong; Dongsheng Zhou; Fanxiao Liu
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2020-07-31       Impact factor: 2.359

8.  Mid-term results of a new-generation calcar-guided short stem in THA: clinical and radiological 5-year follow-up of 216 cases.

Authors:  Karl Philipp Kutzner; Stefanie Donner; Lennard Loweg; Philipp Rehbein; Jens Dargel; Philipp Drees; Joachim Pfeil
Journal:  J Orthop Traumatol       Date:  2019-10-31

9.  Primary stability of calcar-guided short-stem total hip arthroplasty in the treatment of osteonecrosis of the femoral head: migration analysis using EBRA-FCA.

Authors:  Yama Afghanyar; Christoph Danckwardt; Miriam Schwieger; Uwe Felmeden; Philipp Drees; Jens Dargel; Philipp Rehbein; Karl Philipp Kutzner
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2020-10-04       Impact factor: 3.067

10.  Metaphyseal anchoring short stem hip arthroplasty provides a more physiological load transfer: a comparative finite element analysis study.

Authors:  Shuang G Yan; Yan Chevalier; Fanxiao Liu; Xingyi Hua; Anna Schreiner; Volkmar Jansson; Florian Schmidutz
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2020-10-29       Impact factor: 2.359

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.