Abstract
Introduction
Many uncemented femoral implant designs have had successful outcomes in total hip arthroplasty (THA). Different uncemented stem designs achieve initial and long term stability through shape, size, coating and fit. There is increasing emphasis on bone preservation, particularly in younger and more active patients. The desire to optimize load transfer has led to the development of short stems that seek to achieve fixation in the proximal femur. Short stems designed to achieve stability by engaging the metaphysis or the proximal femoral necks are currently in clinical use. The purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which five stems designed to achieve proximal fixation contact the bone in the proximal femur. Using three-dimensional CT models of 30 femurs, we assessed the fit, fill and contact of each of the five different implants.
Methods
Using three-dimensional computerized templating software designed to navigate robotic surgery, pre-operative CT scans of 30 patients were analyzed. Each of five femoral implant designs (TRILOCK, ARC, ABGII, CITATION, ACCOLADE) was then optimized for size and fit based on manufacturer technique guide and design rationale. The proximal femoral metaphysis was divided into four zones in the axial plane. Five contact points were determined on the frontal plane using anatomical landmarks. Each zone was assessed for cortical contact and fill of the bone-implant interface. We graded contact from 1 to 5, with 5 being 100% contact.
Results
In the 150 different templates analyzed significant variability existed in contact areas of the proximal femur depending on implant design and femoral morphology. High femoral neck resection design (ARC) had the greatest contact area in the most proximal zones (Figure 1). The ABG II and Trilock stems had comparable contact in the antero-medial zones, while the ABG II had greater fill in the sagittal plane (Figures 2 & 3). The Trilock was the only stem that consistently achieved lateral cortical contact at the distal landmarks. All stems showed a pattern of mostly posteromedial contact proximally and mostly anteromedial distally.
Discussion
To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine the contact points of metaphyseal engaging stems in the proximal femur. By directly comparing implant contact points in the same femur we found significant variability in the extent of fit, fill and contact of the metaphysis. These differences in proximal femoral contact are like to have implications for fixation in bone of varying quality and for long term proximal bone remodeling.
