BONE REMODELLING DIFFERENCES BETWEEN METAPHYSEAL AND DIAPHYSEAL FIT STEM DESIGN IN UNCEMENTED TOTAL HIP ARTHROPLASTY

Abstract

Purpose: To determine the differences in bone remodelling between a metaphyseal and a diaphyseal fixed stem in uncemented total hip arthroplasty.

Methods: Twenty-three patients undergoing uncemented total hip arthroplasty (28 hips) utilizing a metaphyseal fit stem were matched to 27 patients (32 hips) undergoing uncemented total hip arthroplasty utilizing a diaphyseal fit stem. Patients were matched for age, gender and follow-up. All patients were assessed by clinical and radiographic examination at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months and yearly thereafter. Radiographs were assessed for periprosthetic bone remodelling, canal fill, canal shape and bone quality using the cortical index and the Singh index. At latest follow-up all radiographs were assessed for frequency and time of appearance of spot welds, cortical hypertrophy and development of pedestal formation. All patients were assessed clinically utilizing the modified Harris hip score.

Results: At one year there was no difference in the clinical results between the two groups of patients utilizing the modified Harris hip score 90.6 + 1.5 in metaphyseal fit stems versus 91.7 + 1.7 for diaphyseal fit stems (p> 0.05). There was no statistical difference between the two groups in either femoral canal shape or bone quality–canal-to-calcar ratio 0.49 versus 0.45 (p> 0.05); cortical index 0.45 versus 0.44 (p> 0.05); Singh index 3.44 versus 3.70 (p> 0.05). In assessing canal fill proximal canal fill was statistically greater in metaphyseal fit stems and distal canal fill was significantly greater in diaphyseal fit stems (p< 0.01). There was a statistically significant increase in the frequency and timing of spot welds in metaphyseal stems at 3 months and 6 months (p< 0.05) but no difference in the frequency of spot welds at 1 year and 2 years. Cortical hypertrophy was significantly increased at 6 months, 1 year and 2 years in metaphyseal fit stems as compared to diaphyseal fit stems (p< 0.05). There was no difference in pedestal formation at 1 year or 2 years between the two stem groups (p> 0.05).

Conclusions: After one year the only significant difference between these two groups of patients is increased cortical hypertrophy in those patients undergoing metaphyseal versus diaphyseal stem insertion. Both stem designs demonstrated bone remodelling with no differences in spot welds or pedestal formation. At two years there was no functional difference between these two patient groups.