header advert
You currently have no access to view or download this content. Please log in with your institutional or personal account if you should have access to through either of these
The Bone & Joint Journal Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from The Bone & Joint Journal

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Get Access locked padlock


Not all cementless femoral stems are created equal but the results may be comparable

Download PDF



The aim of this study was to compare the survivorship and radiographic outcomes at ten-year follow-up of three prospective consecutive series of patients each of which received a different design of cementless femoral components for total hip arthroplasty (THA).

Patients and Methods

In Cohort 1, 91 consecutive patients (100 hips) underwent THA with a cementless porous-coated anatomic femoral stem (PCA) between October 1983 and January 1986. In Cohort 2, 86 consecutive patients (100 hips) underwent THA with an extensively porous-coated cementless femoral stem (Prodigy) between June 1994 and October 1997. In Cohort 3, 88 consecutive patients (100 hips) underwent THA with a proximally porous-coated triple-tapered cementless stem (Summit) between April 2002 and October 2003. All three groups underwent prospective clinical and radiographic evaluation.


Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis of Cohort 1 was 91% (95% confidence interval (CI) 88 to 94) with an endpoint of revision for any reason and 97% (95% CI 95 to 99) with aseptic loosening as the endpoint. Survivorship of Cohort 2 was 88% (95% CI 79 to 97) for revision for any reason and 100% for aseptic loosening. Survivorship of Cohort 3 was 95% (95% CI 91 to 99) for revision for any reason and 100% with aseptic loosening as the endpoint.


With revision for aseptic loosening of the femoral component as the endpoint, the three femoral components with different design philosophies demonstrated excellent survivorship, ranging from 97% to 100% at ten years.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B(1 Supple A):14–17.

Correspondence should be sent to J. J. Callaghan; email:

For access options please click here