A Differentiated View on Short Stemmed Hip Arthroplasty – What are the Differences in Fixation and Biomechanics?

Jörg Jerosch; Lars Victor von Engelhardt

doi:10.1055/a-0808-5115

Zeitschrift für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie, Inhaltsverzeichnis

Z Orthop Unfall 2019; 157(05): 548-557
DOI: 10.1055/a-0808-5115

Review/Übersicht

Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

A Differentiated View on Short Stemmed Hip Arthroplasty – What are the Differences in Fixation and Biomechanics?

Artikel in mehreren Sprachen: English | deutsch

Jörg Jerosch

¹Clinic for Orthopaedics and Orthopaedic Surgery, Johanna-Etienne Hospital, Neuss

,

Lars Victor von Engelhardt

²Department for Trauma Surgery, Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, Catholic Karl Leisner Hospital Kleve, Witten/Herdecke University, Faculty of Health, Witten

› Institutsangaben

Abstract

The present paper gives an overview of the different types of short stem total hip replacements. There is a pronounced inhomogeneity of the nomenclature in clinical practice as well as in regard to the scientific literature. Examples include neck preserving implants, meta-, epi- or metadiaphyseal fixed implants, microimplants, ultrashort implants, partial neck preserving implants, trochanteric sparing implants, implants with extra- and/or intramedullar fixation, implants without primary fixation, etc. Biomechanically, the short stems vary from very short, completely neck retaining versions up to implants which are just a shorter version of a standard implant. A frequently cited classification recommends the osteotomy level as a discriminating factor. This classification categorizes into a neck preserving, partial neck preserving and neck resecting short stems.

Key words

primary hip arthroplasty - short stemmed endoprosthesis - hip arthroplasty classifications - biomechanics

Volltext

Referenzen

References/Literatur
1 Learmonth ID, Young C, Rorabeck C. The operation of the century: total hip replacement. Lancet 2007; 370: 1508-1519
2 Grimberg A, Jansson V, Liebs T. et al. EPRD-Jahresbericht: Endoprothesenregister Deutschland. Jahresbericht 2016. Im Internet: https://www.eprd.de/de/ueber-uns/publikationen/ Stand: 24.02.2019
3 Heller KD, Windhagen H. Pressemitteilung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Endoprothetik e.V. (AE) am 1./2. Dezember 2017 in Hamburg und Pressekonferenz am 30. November 2017: Schlüssellochchirurgie und weniger Abrieb – Schonender Hüftgelenksersatz bei jungen Patienten. Freiburg, Hamburg, November/Dezember 2017. Im Internet: https://www.ae-germany.com/die-ae/presse/ae-pressemeldungen Stand: 24.02.2019
4 Salemyr M, Muren O, Ahl T. et al. Lower periprosthetic bone loss and good fixation of an ultra-short stem compared to a conventional sten im uncemented total hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop 2015; 86: 659-666
5 Yamako G, Chosa E, Totoribe K. et al. Trade-off between stress shielding and initial stability on an anatomical cementless stem shortening; in-vitro biomechanical study. Med Eng Phys 2015; 37: 820-825
6 Weber M, Woerner M, Springorum R. et al. Fluoroscopy and imageless navigation enable an equivalent reconstruction of leg length and global and femoral offset in THA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014; 472: 3150-3158
7 Kutzner KP, Kovacevic MP, Roeder C. et al. Reconstruction of femoro-acetabular offsets using a short-stem. Int Orthop 2015; 39: 1269-1275
8 Jerosch J, Grasselli C, Kothny PC. et al. [Reproduction of the anatomy (offset, CCD, leg length) with a modern short stem hip design – a radiological study]. Z Orthop Unfall 2012; 150: 20-26
9 Jerosch J. [Differences between short stem prostheses]. Orthopade 2014; 43: 783-795
10 Babisch J. Möglichkeiten der patientenindividuellen Hüftgelenkrekonstruktion und Knochenresektion bei Kurzschaftprothesen. In: Jerosch J. Hrsg. Kurzschaftendoprothesen – Wo liegen die Unterschiede?. Köln: Deutscher Ärzteverlag; 2013: 193-227
11 Jerosch J, Funken S. [Change of offset after implantation of hip alloarthroplasties]. Unfallchirurg 2004; 107: 475-482
12 Edeen J, Sharkey PF, Alexander AH. Clinical significance of leg-length inequality after total hip arthroplasty. Am J Orthop 1995; 24: 347-351
13 Basad E, Ishaque B, Stürz H. et al. The anterolateral minimally invasive approach for total hip arthroplasty: technique, pitfalls, and way out. Orthop Clin North Am 2009; 40: 473-478
14 Jerosch J, Stobbe S, Schmid G. et al. Prospektive, randomisierte Studie zwischen Bauer- und ALMI-Zugang unter Berücksichtigung von MRI-Befunden und muskelspezifischen Blutparametern. Z Orthop Unfall 2012; 150: 615-623
15 Castelli CC, Rizzi L. Short stems in total hip replacement: current status and future. Hip Int 2014; 24 (Suppl. 10) S25-S28
16 Jerosch J. Ist kürzer wirklich besser? Philosophie der Kurzschaftendoprothesen. Orthopäde 2011; 40: 1075-1083
17 Schnurr C, Schellen B, Dargel J. et al. Low short-stem revision rates: 1–11 year results from 1888 total hip arthroplasties. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32: 487-493
18 von Lewinski G, Floerkemeier T. 10-year experience with short stem total hip arthroplasty. Orthopedics 2015; 38: 51-56
19 von Engelhardt LV, Breil-Wirth A, Kothny C. et al. Long-term results of an anatomically implanted hip arthroplasty with a short stem prosthesis (MiniHipTM). World J Orthop 2018; 9: 210-219
20 Giardina F, Castagnini F, Stea S. et al. Short stems versus conventional stems in cementless total hip arthroplasty: a long-term registry study. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33: 1794-1799
21 Falez F, Casella F, Papalia M. Current concepts, classification, and results in short stem hip arthroplasty. Orthopedics 2015; 38: 6-13
22 Khanuja HS, Banerjee S, Jain D. et al. Short bone-conserving stems in cementless hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2014; 96: 1742-1752
23 Feyen H, Shimmin AJ. Is the length of the femoral component important in primary total hip replacement?. Bone Joint J 2014; 96: 442-448
24 Morlock M, Bichop N. Zur Biomechanik von Kurzschaftprothesen. Orthopädie im Profil 2011; 1: 10-11
25 Stukenborg-Colsman C. Schenkelhalsendoprothesen. Orthopäde 2007; 36: 347-352
26 Jerosch J. Kurzschaft ist nicht gleich Kurzschaft – Eine Klassifikation der Kurzschaftprothesen. OUP 2012; 1: 304-312
27 Jerosch J. Kurzschaftendoprothesen. Wo liegen die Unterschiede?. Köln: Deutscher Ärzte-Verlag; 2012
28 Morrey BF, Adams RA, Kessler M. A conservative femoral replacement for total hip arthroplasty. A prospective study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2000; 82: 952-958
29 Jerosch J, Grasselli C, Kothny PC. et al. Postoperative Veränderungen von Offset, CCD-Winkel und Beinlänge nach Implantation einer metadiaphysär fixierten Kurzschaftprothese – eine radiologische Untersuchung. Z Orthop Unfall 2012; 150: 20-26
30 Pfeil J. Comment je pose la prothèse optimys. Maitrise Orthop 2014; 236 Im Internet: https://www.maitrise-orthopedique.com/articles/comment-je-pose-la-prothese-optimys-224 Stand: 24.02.2019;
31 Kutzner KP, Pfeil J. Individualized stem-positioning in calcar-guided short-stem total hip arthroplasty. J Vis Exp 2018; 132: 56905
32 Pfeil J, Siebert W. Minimally invasive Surgery in total Hip Arthroplasty. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2010
33 Jerosch J. Kurzschaftprothesen an der Hüfte. Berlin: Springer; 2017
34 Ettinger M, Ettinger P, Ezechieli M. et al. CCD and offset after Nanos short stem in total hip arthroplasty. Technol Health Care 2013; 21: 149-155
35 Kutzner KP, Kovacevic MP, Freitag T. et al. Influence of patient-related characteristics on early migration in calcar-guided short-stem total hip arthroplasty: a 2-year migration analysis using EBRA-FCA. J Orthop Surg Res 2016; 11: 29
36 Windhagen H, Chincisan A, Choi HF. et al. Soft-tissue balance in short and straight stem total hip arthroplasty. Orthopedics 2015; 38: 14-20
37 Bieger R, Ignatius A, Decking R. et al. Primary stability and strain distribution of cementless hip stems as a function of implant design. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2012; 27: 158-164
38 Freitag T, Kappe T, Fuchs M. et al. Migration pattern of a femoral short-stem prosthesis: a 2-year EBRA-FCA-study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2014; 134: 1003-1008
39 Budde S, Seehaus F, Schwarze M. et al. Analysis of migration of the Nanos^® short-stem hip implant within two years after surgery. Int Orthop 2016; 40: 1607-1614
40 Ercan A, Sokkar SM, Schmid G. et al. Periprosthetic bone density changes after MiniHip^™ cementless femoral short stem: one-year results of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry study. SICOT J 2016; 2: 40
41 Bishop NE, Burton A, Maheson M. et al. Biomechanics of short hip endoprostheses–the risk of bone failure increases with decreasing implant size. Clin Biomech (Bristol (Avon) 2010; 25: 666-674
42 Wolff J. Das Gesetz der Transformation der Knochen. In: Wessinghage D. Hrsg. Reprints medizinhistorischer Schriften, 4. Stuttgart: Schattauer; 1982
43 Robinson RP, Lovell TP, Green TM. Hip arthroplasty using the cementless CLS stem. A 2–4-year experience. J Arthroplasty 1994; 9: 177-192
44 Bergschmidt P, Bader R, Finze S. et al. Cementless total hip replacement: a prospective clinical study of the early functional and radiological outcomes of three different hip stems. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2010; 130: 125-133
45 Lerch M, von der Haar-Tran A, Windhagen H. et al. Bone remodelling around the Metha short stem in total hip arthroplasty: a prospective dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry study. Int Orthop 2012; 36: 533-538
46 Zeh A, Pankow F, Röllinhoff M. et al. A prospective dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry study of bone remodeling after implantation of the Nanos short-stemmed prosthesis. Acta Orthop Belg 2013; 79: 174-180
47 Shafy TA, Sayed A, Abdelazeem AH. Study of the bone behavior around a neck preserving short stem implant: bone densitometric analysis over a span of two years. SICOT J 2016; 2: 31
48 Banerjee S, Pivec R, Issa K. et al. Outcomes of short stems in total hip arthroplasty. Orthopedics 2013; 36: 700-707