Medium term follow up of the Biodynamic neck sparing prosthesis

Biomechanical Properties of Bionic Collum Femoris Preserving Hip Prosthesis: A Finite Element Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Compared with total hip replacement, conventional collum femoris preserving prosthesis has a better bone retention effect. However, damage to the trabecular bone of the proximal femur leads to inevitable abnormal stress distribution, which leads to increased risks of femoral neck bone absorption, periprosthetic fracture, prosthesis loosening, rotation, and sinking. Thus, we compare the biomechanical properties of collum femoris preserving (CFP) and bionic collum femoris preserving (BCFP) hip prostheses.

METHODS

The Sawbone digital model (#3503, left, medium) was selected as the research object. We used the Mimics 21.0 software to reconstruct the digital model of the femur and the SolidWorks 2019 software to build and assemble the three-dimensional models of CFP and BCFP prostheses. With the ANSYS Workbench 2021R1 software, the models were meshed and assigned values to simulate the load of a single foot under slow walking. We measured the mechanical distribution of the whole model and obtained the stress nephogram.

RESULTS

For CFP prosthesis, the peak stresses of the medial interface of the stem neck, the lateral interface of the stem neck, and the end of the stem were 64.894, 32.199, and 8.578 MPa, respectively; the peak stresses of the medial surface of the femoral shaft, the lateral surface of femoral shaft, the medial femoral neck bone-prosthesis interface (osteotomy interface), the lateral femoral neck bone-prosthesis interface (basal area), the lateral femoral neck bone-prosthesis interface (osteotomy interface), and the greater trochanter area were 28.093, 24.790, 14.388, 5.118, 4.179, and 8.245 MPa, respectively; the valley stress of the greater trochanter area was 1.134 MPa. For BCFP prosthesis, the peak stresses of the medial interface of the stem neck, the lateral interface of the stem neck, and the end of the stem were 47.015, 26.771, and 47.593 MPa, respectively; the peak stress of tension screw was 15.739 MPa; the peak stresses of the medial surface of the femoral shaft, the lateral surface of femoral shaft, the medial femoral neck bone-prosthesis interface (osteotomy interface), the lateral femoral neck bone-prosthesis interface (basal area), the lateral femoral neck bone-prosthesis interface (osteotomy interface) and the greater trochanter area were 28.581, 25.364, 15.624, 6.434, 4.986, and 8.796 MPa, respectively; the valley stress of the greater trochanter area was 1.419 MPa; the peak stress of bone-metal interface between the tension screw and the lateral surface of the femur was 5.858 MPa.

CONCLUSION

Compared with the CFP prosthesis, the design of the BCFP prosthesis is based on the lever balance theory. With the bionic reconstruction of tension trabeculae, BCFP prosthesis makes up for the defects of CFP prosthesis design, optimizes the stress distribution, and reduces the stress shelter effect of the proximal femur, which has better biomechanical properties.

Comparison of collum femoris-preserving stems and ribbed stems in primary total hip arthroplasty

Background

This retrospective study investigated the relative benefits of using a collum femoris-preserving prosthesis or ribbed stem during total hip arthroplasty (THA).

Methods

The clinical results were compared of patients who underwent THA, between January 2010 and December 2012, with either a CFP prosthesis or a ribbed stem (66 and 75 patients, respectively, aged 43.4 ± 10.8 and 42.3 ± 9.8 years). Patients were assessed using the Harris Hip Score (HHS), Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12), and physical component summary (PCS) score. Intraoperative and postoperative complications and leg-length differences were noted.

Results

The mean follow-up times of the CFP and ribbed groups were 67.2 ± 7.5 and 68.3 ± 7.2 months, respectively. The HHS, SF-12 MCS, SF-12 PCS, and WOMAC scores of the two groups were similar. The rates of periprosthetic femoral fractures and leg-length differences > 10 mm in the CFP group (10.6% and 13.6%, respectively) were significantly higher than those in the ribbed group (1.3% and 2.7%). The groups were similar regarding complications of osteolysis, ectopic ossification, dislocation, deep infection, deep venous thrombosis, thigh pain, and aseptic loosening. The survival rates of the CFP and ribbed groups were comparable (98.5% and 97.8%).

Conclusion

The clinical results of the CFP and ribbed prostheses in young patients given THA were similar for Chinese patients. However, the CFP stem should be used with caution, given the high incidence of technical problems associated with implantation especially for Chinese patients.

Uncemented short stems in primary total hip arthroplasty: The state of the art

Over the last two decades, several conservative femoral prostheses have been designed. The goals of conservative stems include: the spearing of the trochanteric bone stock; a more physiological loading in the proximal femur reducing the risk of stress shielding; and to avoid a long stem into the diaphysis preventing impingement with the femoral cortex and thigh pain.

All stems designed to be less invasive than conventional uncemented stems are commonly named ‘short stems’. However, this term is misleading because it refers to a heterogeneous group of stems deeply different in terms of design, biomechanics and bearing. In the short-term follow-up, all conservative stems provided excellent survivorship. However, variable rates of complications were reported, including stem malalignment, incorrect stem sizing and intra-operative fracture.

Radiostereometric analysis (RSA) studies demonstrated that some conservative stems were affected by an early slight migration and rotation within the first months after surgery, followed by a secondary stable fixation. Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) studies demonstrated an implant-specific pattern of bone remodelling.

Although the vast majority of stems demonstrated a good osseointegration, some prostheses transferred loads particularly to the lateral and distal-medial regions, favouring proximal stress shielding and bone atrophy in the great trochanter and calcar regions.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2018;3:149-159. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.3.170052

Better early functional outcome after short stem total hip arthroplasty? A prospective blinded randomised controlled multicentre trial comparing the Collum Femoris Preserving stem with a Zweymuller straight cementless stem total hip replacement for the treatment of primary osteoarthritis of the hip

OBJECTIVES

Primary aim was to compare the functional results at 3 months and 2 years between short and conventional cementless stem total hip arthroplasty (THA). Secondary aim was to determine the feasibility of a double-blind implant-related trial.

DESIGN

A prospective blinded randomised controlled multicentre trial in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip. All patients, research assistants, clinical assessors, investigators and data analysts were blinded to the type of prosthesis.

POPULATION

150 patients between 18 and 70 years with osteoarthritis of the hip, 75 in the short stem and 75 in the conventional stem group. Mean age: 60 years (SD 7).

INTERVENTIONS

the Collum Femoris Preserving short stem versus the Zweymuller Alloclassic conventional stem.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The Dutch version of the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS). Secondary outcomes measures: Harris Hip Score, the Physical Component Scale of the SF12, the Timed Up and Go test, Pain and the EQ-5D. Feasibility outcomes: continued blinding, protocol adherence and follow-up success rate.

RESULTS

No significant difference between the two groups. Mean HOOS total score in the short stem group increased 32.7 points from 36.6 (95% CI 32.9 to 40.2) preoperatively to 69.3 (95% CI 66.4 to 72.1) at 3 months follow-up. Mean HOOS total score in the conventional straight stem group increased 36.3 points from 37.1 (95% CI 33.9 to 40.3) preoperatively to 73.4 (95% CI 70.3 to 76.4) at 3 months follow-up. 91.2% of patients remained blinded at 2 years follow-up. Both protocol adherence and follow-up success rate were 98%.

CONCLUSIONS

Functional result at 3 months and 2 years after short stem THA is not superior to conventional cementless THA. There were more perioperative and postoperative complications in the short stem group. Direct comparison of two hip implants in a double-blinded randomised controlled trial is feasible.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NTR1560.

Short bone-conserving stems in cementless hip arthroplasty

➤ Short bone-conserving femoral stems in total hip arthroplasty were designed to preserve proximal bone stock.➤ Given the distinct fixation principles and location of loading among these bone-conserving stems, a classification system is essential to compare clinical outcomes.➤ Due to the low quality of currently available evidence, only a weak recommendation can be provided for clinical usage of certain stem designs, while some other designs cannot be recommended at this time.➤ A high prevalence of stem malalignment, incorrect sizing, subsidence, and intraoperative fractures has been reported in a subset of these short stem designs.➤ Stronger evidence, including prospective multicenter randomized trials comparing standard stems with these newer designs, is necessary before widespread use can be recommended.

Revision rate after short-stem total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review of 49 studies

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The aim of short-stem total hip arthroplasty is to preserve proximal bone stock for future revisions, to improve biomechanical reconstruction, and to make minimally invasive approaches easier. It is therefore being increasingly considered to be a sound alternative to conventional total hip arthroplasty, especially for young and active patients. However, it is still unknown whether survival rates of short-stem hips match current standards. We made a systematic summary of reported overall survival after short-stem total hip arthroplasty.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of English, French, German, and Dutch literature. 2 assessors independently identified clinical studies on short-stem hip arthroplasty. After recalculating reported revision rates, we determined whether each implant had a projected revision rate of 10% or less at 10 years of follow-up or a revision rate per 100 observed component years of 1 or less. Stems were classified as "collum", "partial collum", or "trochanter-sparing".

RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION

We found 49 studies, or 51 cohorts, involving 19 different stems. There was a large increase in recent publications. The majority of studies included had a follow-up of less than 5 years. We found a large number of observational studies on "partial collum" and "trochanter-sparing" stems, demonstrating adequate survival rates at medium-term follow-up. Clinical evidence from "collum stem" studies was limited to a small number of studies with a medium-term follow-up period. These studies did not show a satisfactory overall survival rate.

Neck-preserving femoral stems

BACKGROUND

Surgeons undertaking total hip arthroplasty (THA) routinely perform a distal femoral neck resection. It has been argued that retaining the femoral neck during THA can provide mechanical and biological advantages.

PURPOSES

The objectives of this study were to review: (1) the current evidence on the advantages of femoral neck preservation during THA and (2) the clinical and radiological outcome of neck-preserving femoral stems.

METHODS

A search of the English-language literature on neck-preserving THA and on the individual neck-preserving implants was performed using PubMed, Ovid SP and Science Direct.

RESULTS

Studies have indicated that neck preservation offers superior tri-planar implant stability and allows more accurate restoration of the hip geometry and biomechanics. The trend towards tissue sparing surgery has contributed to the development of bone-conserving short-stem implants that offer variable levels of neck preservation. Despite an initial learning curve, these implants have generated promising early clinical results, with low revision rates and high outcome scores. However, radiological evaluation of some neck-preserving implants has detected a characteristic pattern of proximal femoral bone loss with distal cortical hypertrophy. The long-term implications of this finding are not yet known.

CONCLUSIONS

Preserving the femoral neck during THA has biomechanical advantages. However, long-term outcome data are needed on neck-preserving femoral stems to evaluate on-going bone remodelling and assess implant performance and survival.