Shuang G Yan1,2, Patrick Weber1, Arnd Steinbrück1, Xingyi Hua2, Volkmar Jansson1, Florian Schmidutz3,4. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Munich (LMU), Munich, Germany. 2. The First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China. 3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Munich (LMU), Munich, Germany. fschmidutz@bgu-tuebingen.de. 4. BG Trauma Centre Tübingen, University of Tübingen, Schnarrenbergstrasse 95, 72076, Tübingen, Germany. fschmidutz@bgu-tuebingen.de.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Short-stem hip arthroplasty (SHA) was designed to preserve bone stock and provide an improved load transfer. To gain more evidence regarding the load transfer, this review analysed the periprosthetic bone remodelling of SHA in comparison to standard hip arthroplasty (THA). METHODS: PubMed and ScienceDirect were screened to extract dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) studies evaluating the periprosthetic bone remodelling of SHA and two proven THA designs. From the studies included, the postoperative change in periprosthetic bone mineral density (BMD) after one year and the trend over two years was determined. RESULTS: Fifteen studies with four SHAs (CFP, Metha, Nanos, Fitmore) and two THAs (CLS and Bicontact) designs were included. All SHA and THA stems revealed an initial decrease at the calcar and major trochanter (Gruen 1 and 7) with the Metha, Nanos and Fitmore showing a smaller and more balanced remodelling compared to THA. The pattern after one year and the trend over two years argue for a methaphyseal anchorage of the Metha and Nanos, whereas the Fitmore and CFP seem to anchor metha-diaphyseal. Clearly different pattern of bone remodelling were observed between all four SHAs. CONCLUSIONS: Periprosthetic bone remodelling is also present in SHA, with the main bone reduction observed proximally. However, certain SHA stems show a more balanced remodelling compared to THA, arguing for a favourable load transfer. Also, the femoral length where bone remodelling occurs is clearly shorter in SHA. As distinctively different pattern between the SHA designs were observed, they should not be judged as a single implant group.
PURPOSE: Short-stem hip arthroplasty (SHA) was designed to preserve bone stock and provide an improved load transfer. To gain more evidence regarding the load transfer, this review analysed the periprosthetic bone remodelling of SHA in comparison to standard hip arthroplasty (THA). METHODS: PubMed and ScienceDirect were screened to extract dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) studies evaluating the periprosthetic bone remodelling of SHA and two proven THA designs. From the studies included, the postoperative change in periprosthetic bone mineral density (BMD) after one year and the trend over two years was determined. RESULTS: Fifteen studies with four SHAs (CFP, Metha, Nanos, Fitmore) and two THAs (CLS and Bicontact) designs were included. All SHA and THA stems revealed an initial decrease at the calcar and major trochanter (Gruen 1 and 7) with the Metha, Nanos and Fitmore showing a smaller and more balanced remodelling compared to THA. The pattern after one year and the trend over two years argue for a methaphyseal anchorage of the Metha and Nanos, whereas the Fitmore and CFP seem to anchor metha-diaphyseal. Clearly different pattern of bone remodelling were observed between all four SHAs. CONCLUSIONS: Periprosthetic bone remodelling is also present in SHA, with the main bone reduction observed proximally. However, certain SHA stems show a more balanced remodelling compared to THA, arguing for a favourable load transfer. Also, the femoral length where bone remodelling occurs is clearly shorter in SHA. As distinctively different pattern between the SHA designs were observed, they should not be judged as a single implant group.
Authors: W Brodner; P Bitzan; F Lomoschitz; P Krepler; R Jankovsky; S Lehr; F Kainberger; F Gottsauner-Wolf Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Br Date: 2004-01
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
Authors: Matthias Lerch; Agnes Kurtz; Henning Windhagen; Anas Bouguecha; Bernd A Behrens; Patrick Wefstaedt; Christina M Stukenborg-Colsman Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2012-08-04 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Francesco Pogliacomi; Paolo Schiavi; Guido Grappiolo; Francesco Ceccarelli; Enrico Vaienti Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2019-04-24 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Giuseppe Sessa; Luciano Costarella; Calogero Puma Pagliarello; Antonio Di Stefano; Andrea Sessa; Gianluca Testa; Vito Pavone Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2018-10-03 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Stefan Budde; Michael Schwarze; Thilo Floerkemeier; Jochen Plagge; Nils Wirries; Henning Windhagen; Fritz Thorey; Alexander Derksen Journal: J Orthop Date: 2020-06-06