Short cementless femoral stems are increasingly popular as they allow for less dissection for insertion. Use of such stems with the anterior approach (AA) may be associated with considerable per-operative fracture risk. This study's primary aim was to evaluate whether patient-specific femoral- and pelvic- morphology and surgical technique, influence per-operative fracture risk. In doing so, we aimed to describe important anatomical thresholds alerting surgeons. This is a single-center, multi-surgeon retrospective, case-control matched study. Of 1145 primary THAs with a short, cementless stem inserted via the AA, 39 periprosthetic fractures (3.4%) were identified. These were matched for factors known to increase fracture risk (age, gender, BMI, side, Dorr classification, stem offset and indication for surgery) with 78 THAs that did not sustain a fracture. Radiographic analysis was performed using validated software to measure femoral- (canal flare index [CFI], morphological cortical index [MCI], calcar-calcar ratio [CCR]) and pelvic- (Ilium-ischial ratio [IIR], ilium overhang, and ASIS to greater trochanter distance) morphologies and surgical technique (% canal fill). Multivariate and Receiver-Operator Curve (ROC) analysis was performed to identify predictors of fracture. Femoral factors that differed included CFI (3.7±0.6 vs 2.9±0.4, p3.17 and II ratio>3 (OR:29.2 95%CI: 9.5–89.9, p<0.001). Patient-specific anatomical parameters are important predictors of fracture-risk. When considering the use of short stems via the AA, careful radiographic analysis would help identify those at risk in order to consider alternative stem options

Purpose. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the midterm results of cementless revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) using Wagner Cone Prosthesis. Material and Methods. Between 1996 and 2007, 36 hips in 36 consecutive patients underwent femoral revision THA using Wagner Cone Prosthesis. Among them 28 hips were followed for more than 5 years. The mean age at revision surgery was 57 years and a mean follow-up was 7.6 years. The Paprosky classification system was used for preoperative bone loss evaluation. Clinical results were evaluated using Harris hip scores. For evaluation of the femoral component, radiolucent lines at bone-implant interfaces were evaluated and femoral component vertical subsidence was measured. Heterotopic bone formation and complications were also evaluated. Results. The mean period from 1. st. operation to revision THA was 8.0 years. For the femoral bone loss, in eleven hips bone grafting was done. For the prevention of femoral stem fracture, femoral wiring was done in 12 hips. In eighteen hips acetabular cup revision was done simultaneously and in 5 hips isolated stem revision was done. The mean Harris hip score improved from 52 to 83 at final follow-up. With respect to radiological results all femoral stems showed bone ingrowths, 3 out of 28 (10.7%) femoral stems showed subsidence more than 5 mm. Two patients needed acetabular revision for acetabular loosening during follow up period. There was one patient who complained of anterior thigh pain. One patient had recurrent dislocation and required revision surgery for soft tissue augmentation. Conclusions. We achieved favorable midterm clinical and radiological results for femoral stem revisions using Wagner cone prosthesis. This cementless femoral stem can be a good option for femoral stem revision

Purpose:. In order to acquire good stability of an arthroplasty hip, the proper placement of the implants, which prevents impingement between the stem neck and the socket, is important. In general, the anteversion of the uncemented femoral stem depends on the relationship between the three-dimensional structure of the proximal femoral canal and the proximal stem geometry. The exact degree of the anteversion will be known just after broaching during the operation. If the stem anteversion could be forecasted, preoperative planning of the socket placement would be relatively easy. Furthermore, when a high degree of anteversion is forecasted, a special femoral stem to reduce it, such as a modular stem, could be prepared. However, we experienced that the preoperatively measured anteversion of the femoral neck using computer tomography (CT) was sometimes different from that of the stem measured during the operation. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the preoperative measurement would be helpful to predict the stem anteversion by examining the relationship between the anteversion of the femoral neck and the stem. Patients and methods:. A total of 57 primary THAs by one senior surgeon from April 2011 until March 2012 were carried out. Two THAs using a modular stem and one for the hip after previous proximal femoral osteotomy were excluded. The remaining 54 THAs were examined. The used uncemented stems were designed for proximal metaphyseal fixation. CT scans, including the distal femoral condyles as well as the hips, were carried out in all cases preoperatively. The anteversion of the femoral neck was measured as the angle of the maximum longitudinal line of the cross section of the femoral neck to the line connecting the posterior surfaces of both of the distal femoral condyles (Fig. 1). The femoral neck anteversion was measured at three levels (Fig. 1). The stem anteversion was measured just after the femoral broaching during the THA. The relationship between the anteversion angles of the femoral neck and of the stem was examined by using a regression analysis. The institutional review board approved this study. Results:. The anteversion angles of the femoral neck varied widely when they were measured at all of the levels (Table 1). The anteversion angle of the femoral neck was not always identical to that of the stem. There were 32–46% of cases in which the difference between the stem anteversion and the femoral neck anteversion was within 5 degrees. There was a significant relationship between the anteversion of the stem and that of the femoral neck measured at all three levels (Fig. 2). When it was measured just below the femoral head, it was the closest to one, and the p-value was the lowest. Discusssion and Conclusions:. The anteversion of the uncemented stem could be calculated by using the formula to show the relationship between the stem anteversion and the femoral neck antevesion measured preoperatively. The values appeared to be sufficiently correct for making clinical decisions, although a prospective study may be necessary to confirm this

Femoral stem design affects periprosthetic bone mineral density (BMD), which may impact long term survival of cementless implants in total hip arthroplasty (THA). The aim of this study was to examine proximal femoral BMD in three morphologically different uncemented femoral stems designs to investigate whether one particular design resulted in improved preservation of BMDMethods: 119 patients were randomised to receive either a proximally coated dual taper wedge stem, a proximally coated anatomic stem or a fully coated collarless triple tapered stem. All surgeries were performed via the posterior approach with mobilization on the day of surgery. Dual energy x-ray absorptiometry scans (Lunar iDXA, GE Healthcare, Madison, WI) assessed BMD across the seven Gruen zones pre-operatively, and post-operatively at 6-weeks, 1-year, and 2-years and compared to the unoperated contralateral femur as a control. Patient reported outcome measures of pain, function and health were also included at these corresponding follow-ups. BMD increased in zones one (2.5%), two (17.1%), three (13.0%), five (10%) and six (17.9%) for all stems. Greater preservation of BMD was measured on the lateral cortex (zone 2) for both the dual taper wedge and anatomic stems (p = 0.019). The dual taper wedge stem also demonstrated preservation of BMD in the medial calcar (zone 7) whilst the anatomic and triple taper stem declined in this region, however this was not statistically significant (p = 0.059). BMD decreased on average by 2.1% inthe mid-diaphysis region, distal to the stem tip (zone 4) for all implants. All stems performed equivalently at final follow-up in all patient reported outcome measures. This study demonstrated maintenance of femoral BMD in three different cementless femoral stem designs, with all achieving excellent improvements in patient reported outcomes. There was no significant stress shielding observed, however longer follow-up is required to elucidate the impact of this finding on implant survivorship

Abstract. Extended Trochanteric Osteotomy (ETO) improves surgical exposure and aids femoral stem and bone cement removal in Revision Total Hip Replacement (RTHR) surgery. The aim of this study was to identify healing rates and complications of ETO in RTHR. Methods. From 2012 to 2019 we identified patients who underwent ETO for RTHR. Data collected demographics, BMI, diabetes, anticoagulants, indication for ETO, surgical approach, length of ETO and complications. Descriptive analysis of patient demographics, multiple linear regression analysis was performed to assess ETO complications. Results. There were 63 patients with an average age of 69 years. Indications for ETO were aseptic loosening (30), infection (15), periprosthetic fracture (9), recurrent dislocation (5), broken implant (4). There were 44 cemented and 19 uncemented femoral stem that underwent ETO. Average time from index surgery was 12 years (less than a year to 38 years). All procedures were through posterolateral approach and all ETO were stabilised with cables. Average length of ETO was 12.5cm. BMI varied from 18 to 37. There were 5 diabetics and 16 on anticoagulants. All but one ETO went on to unite. Other complications included infection, dislocations, lateral thigh pain and significant limp. Discussion. Fixation of ETO can be with either wires or cables or plate with cables/screws. Advantages of cables are no irritation over greater trochanter, no disruption of gluteus medius/vastus lateralis continuity, reproducible tension in cables and use of torque limiter minimises loss of tension in cables

While Oxidized Zirconium (OxZr) femoral heads matched with highly cross-linked polyethylene (XLPE) have demonstrated the lowest rate of revision compared to other bearing couples in the Australian National Joint Registry, it has been postulated that these results may, in part, be due to the fact that a single company offers this bearing option with a limited combination of femoral and acetabular prostheses. The purpose of this study was to assess clinical and radiographic outcomes in a matched cohort of total hip replacements (THR) utilizing an identical cementless femoral stem and acetabular component with either an Oxidized Zirconium (OxZr) or Cobalt-Chrome (CoCr) femoral heads at a minimum of 10 years follow-up. We reviewed our institutional database to identify all patients whom underwent a THR with a single cementless femoral stem, acetabular component, XLPE liner and OxZr femoral head with a minimum of 10 years of follow-up. These were then matched to patients who underwent a THR with identical prosthesis combinations with CoCr femoral head by gender, age and BMI. All patients were prospectively evaluated with WOMAC, SF-12 and Harris Hip Score (HHS) preoperatively and postoperatively at 6 weeks, 3 months, 1 and 2 years and every 2 years thereafter. Charts and radiographs were reviewed to determine the revision rates and survivorship (both all cause and aseptic) at 10 years for both cohorts. Paired analysis was performed to determine if differences exist in patient reported outcomes. There were 208 OxZr THRs identified which were matched with 208 CoCr THRs. There was no difference in average age (OxZr, 54.58 years, CoCr, 54.75 years), gender (OxZr 47.6% female, CoCr 47.6% female), and average body max index (OxZr, 31.36 kg/m2, CoCr, 31.12 kg/m2) between the two cohorts. There were no significant differences preoperatively in any of the outcome scores between the two groups (WOMAC (p=0.449), SF-12 (p=0.379), HHS(p=0.3718)). Both the SF12 (p=0.446) and the WOMAC (p=0.278) were similar between the two groups, however the OxZr THR cohort had slightly better HHS compared to the CoCr THR cohort (92.6 vs. 89.7, p=0.039). With revision for any reason as the end point, there was no significant difference in 10 years survivorship between groups (OxZr 98.5%, CoCr 96.6%, p=0.08). Similarly, aseptic revisions demonstrated comparable survivorship rates at 10 year between the OxZr (99.5%) and CoCr groups (97.6%)(p=0.15). Both THR cohorts demonstrated outstanding survivorship and improvement in patient reported outcomes. The only difference was a slightly better HHS score for the OxZr cohort which may represent selection bias, where OxZr implants were perhaps implanted in more active patients. Implant survivorship was excellent and not dissimilar for both the OxZr and CoCr groups at 10 years. Therefore, with respect to implant longevity at the end of the first decade, there appears to be no clear advantage of OxZr heads compared to CoCr heads when paired with XLPE for patients with similar demographics. Further follow-up into the second and third decade may be required to demonstrate if a difference does exist

In a society whereby the incidence of obesity is increasing and medico-legal implications of treatment failure are more frequently ending with the consulting doctor, clarity is required as to any restrictions placed on common orthopaedic implants by manufacturing companies. The aim of this study was to identify any restrictions placed on the commonly used femoral stem implants in total hip replacement (THR) surgery, by the manufacturers, based on patient weight. The United Kingdom (UK) National Joint Registry (NJR) was used to identify the five most commonly used cemented and uncemented femoral stem implants during 2012. The manufacturing companies responsible for these implants were asked to provide details of any weight restrictions placed on these implants. The Corail size 6 stem is the only implant to have a weight restriction (60Kg). All other stems, both cemented and uncemented, were free of any restrictions. Fatigue fracture of the femoral stem has been well documented in the literature, particularly involving the high nitrogen stainless steel cemented femoral stems and to a lesser extent the cemented cobalt chrome and uncemented femoral stems. In all cases excessive patient weight leading to increased cantilever bending of the femoral stem was thought to be a major factor contributing to the failure mechanism. From the current literature there is clearly an association between excessive patient weight and fatigue failure of the femoral stem. We suggest avoiding, where possible, the insertion of small stems (particularly cemented stems) and large offset stems (particularly those with a modular neck) in overweight patients

Revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a challenging procedure and the removal of well-fixed femoral stems can be compounded by several pitfalls. In such cases, several removal techniques have been presented in the literature. The most commonly used techniques are the transfemoral osteotomy presented by Wagner and the extended trochanteric osteotomy (ETO) described by Younger et al. Both techniques allow the surgeon to have better intraoperative exposure of the fixation surfaces of the solid femoral stems. However, the complication rates such as non-union should not be underestimated. Therefore, it is always a good decision to avoid an ETO if alternative techniques exist. The endofemoral surgical technique is an alternative method for the removal of well-fixed cemented and cementless femoral stems. Tips and tricks of the endofemoral technique for the removal of well-fixed femoral stems are presented

Background. Radiostereometric Analysis (RSA) is an accurate measure of implant migration following total joint replacement surgery. Early implant migration predicts later loosening and implant failure, with RSA a proven short-term predictor of long-term survivorship. The proximal migration of an acetabular cup has been demonstrated to be a surrogate measure of component loosening and the associated risk of revision. RSA was used to assess migration of the R3 acetabular component which utilises an enhanced porous ingrowth surface. Migration of the R3 acetabular component was also assessed when comparing the fixation technique of the femoral stems implanted. Methods. Twenty patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty were implanted with the R3 acetabular cup. The median age was 70 years (range, 53–87 years). During surgery tantalum markers were inserted into the acetabulum and the outer rim of the polyliner. RSA examinations were performed postoperatively at 4 to 5 days, 6, 12 and 24 months. Data was analysed for fourteen patients to determine the migration of the acetabular cup relative to the acetabulum. Of these fourteen patients, six were implanted with a cementless femoral stem and eight with a cemented femoral stem. Patients were clinically assessed using the Harris Hip Score (HHS) and Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) preoperatively and at 6, 12 and 24 months postoperatively. Results. RSA revealed no significant acetabular cup migration in all planes of translation and rotation with mean translations below 0.40 mm and mean rotations below 1 deg at 24 months. The data suggests that acetabular migration occurred primarily in the first 6 months postoperatively. We observed mean translations at 24 months of 0.36 mm (x-axis), 0.39 mm (y-axis) and 0.35 mm (z-axis). Mean rotations of 0.68 deg (x-axis), 0.99 deg (y-axis) and 0.77 deg (z-axis) were also observed at 24 months. Micromotion along the proximal-distal translation (y-axis) plane represented proximal migration of the acetabular component (Figure 1). On investigation of the femoral stems (cementless and cemented) implanted with the R3 acetabular cup, the mean proximal migration of the acetabular cup for both was 0.39 mm (CI 0.19–0.58). For cementless femoral stems a mean proximal migration of 0.45 mm (CI 0.09–0.98) and for cemented femoral stems a mean proximal migration of 0.35 mm (CI 0.24–0.45) were observed (Figure 1). A significant difference in the clinical assessment of patients when comparing pre-operative with 6, 12 and 24 months were also observed (p < 0.0001). All clinical assessments demonstrated equivalent results when comparing the post-operative follow-up time points and the R3 acetabular cup and stem combinations. Conclusions. Mean translations and rotations were higher than previously reported for acetabular components with the enhanced porous ingrowth surface. The magnitude of proximal migration 24 months postoperatively was within published ‘acceptable’ levels, albeit within the ‘at risk’ range of 0.2–1.0 mm. Comparison of the proximal migration for cementless and cemented femoral stems expressed similar outcomes, a trend also observed with the clinical assessments. These findings support further investigation and analysis of the R3 acetabular component

As an increasing number of young, active large patients become candidates for total hip replacements, there is an increasingly urgent need to identify arthroplasties that will be durable, highly functional and amenable to possible future successful revision. In an era when cemented femoral stems were the primary implant option, the concept of a surface replacement was attractive and, perhaps, appropriate. However, cementless femoral stems of many designs now provide dependable long term fixation and excellent, near normal function. However, a number of issues related to cementless stem fixation could be further improved: . –. Optimisation of load transfer to proximal femur to minimize fracture risk and maximize bone preservation. –. Elimination of proximal-distal mismatch concerns, including bowed femurs. –. Facilitation of femoral stem insertion, especially with MIS THA exposures. –. Facilitation of revision with implants capable of providing durable fixation for active patients. The potential benefits of short stem femoral THA implants include: . –. Ease of insertion. –. Avoidance of issues related to proximal-distal anatomic mismatch or variations in proximal femoral diaphyseal anatomy (e.g. femoral bowing). –. Facilitation of MIS surgical approaches, especially anterior exposures. –. Optimisation of proximal femoral load transfer with consequent maximisation of proximal bone preservation. However, a number of potential drawbacks may be associated with the use of cementless short stems: . –. Initial and durable fixation may be highly sensitive to implant design and surface treatment. –. The implants may not be suitable for patients with osteopenia. Consistent, reliable identification of patients appropriate for these implants may be difficult. –. There may be a significant learning curve associated with the use of short stem implants. At this time, it is important to realize that not all short stem implants are equal. In view of the reliability of a large number of uncemented femoral stems of conventional length, surgeons should base their use of specific short stems upon clinical evidence of their safety and durability

Increasing pressure to use rapid recovery care pathways when treating patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA) is evident in current health care systems for numerous reasons. Patient autonomy and health care economics has challenged the ability of THA implants to maintain functional integrity before achieving bony union. Although collared stems have been shown to provide improved axial stability, it is unclear if this stability correlates with activity levels or results in improved early function to patients compared to collarless stems. This study aims to examine the role of implant design on patient activity and implant fixation. The early follow-up period was examined as the majority of variation between implants is expected during this time-frame. Patients (n=100) with unilateral hip OA who were undergoing primary THA surgery were recruited pre-operatively to participate in this prospective randomized controlled trial. All patients were randomized to receive either a collared (n=50) or collarless (n=50) cementless femoral stem. Patients will be seen at nine appointments (pre-operative, < 2 4 hours post-operation, two-, four-, six-weeks, three-, six-months, one-, and two-years). Patients completed an instrumented timed up-and-go (TUG) test using wearable sensors at each visit, excluding the day of their surgery. Participants logged their steps using Fitbit activity trackers and a seven-day average prior to each visit was recorded. Patients also underwent supine radiostereometric analysis (RSA) imaging < 2 4 hours post-operation prior to leaving the hospital, and at all follow-up appointments. Nineteen collared stem patients and 20 collarless stem patients have been assessed. There were no demographic differences between groups. From < 2 4 hours to two weeks the collared implant subsided 0.90 ± 1.20 mm and the collarless implant subsided 3.32 ± 3.10 mm (p=0.014). From two weeks to three months the collared implant subsided 0.65 ± 1.54 mm and the collarless implant subsided 0.45 ± 0.52 mm (p=0.673). Subsidence following two weeks was lower than prior to two weeks in the collarless group (p=0.02) but not different in the collared group. Step count was reduced at two weeks compared to pre-operatively by 4078 ± 2959 steps for collared patients and 4282 ± 3187 steps for collarless patients (p=0.872). Step count increased from two weeks to three months by 6652 ± 4822 steps for collared patients and 4557 ± 2636 steps for collarless patients (p=0.289). TUG test time was increased at two weeks compared to pre-operatively by 4.71 ± 5.13 s for collared patients and 6.54 ± 10.18 s for collarless patients (p=0.551). TUG test time decreased from two weeks to three months by 7.21 ± 5.56 s for collared patients and 8.38 ± 7.20 s for collarless patients (p=0.685). There was no correlation between subsidence and step count or TUG test time. Collared implants subsided less in the first two weeks compared to collarless implants but subsequent subsidence after two weeks was not significantly different. The presence of a collar on the stem did not affect patient activity and function and these factors were not correlated to subsidence, suggesting that initial fixation is instead primarily related to implant design

Revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a challenging procedure, especially in cases with well-fixed implants. In such cases, several removal techniques have been presented in the current literature, while the most commonly used techniques are the transfemoral osteotomy or the extended trochanteric osteotomy (ETO). Those techniques allow the surgeon to have a better intra-operative exposure of the fixation surfaces of the solid femoral stems. However, the complication rates such as non-union are not unremarkable. Therefore, it is always a good decision to avoid an ETO if alternative techniques exist. The endofemoral surgical technique is an alternative method for the removal of well-fixed cemented and uncemented femoral stems

Cementless femoral stems of many designs now provide dependable long-term fixation and excellent, near normal function in patients of all ages, sexes and level of activity. However, a number of issues related to cementless stem fixation could be further improved: Optimization of load transfer to proximal femur to minimise fracture risk and maximise bone preservation; Elimination of proximal-distal mismatch concerns, including bowed femurs; Facilitation of femoral stem insertion, especially for Anterior and MIS exposures; Facilitation of revision with implants capable of providing durable fixation for active patients. The potential benefits of short stem femoral THA implants include: Ease of insertion; Reproducibility of insertion; Avoidance of issues related to proximal-distal anatomic mismatch or variations in proximal femoral diaphyseal anatomy (e.g. femoral bowing); Facilitation of MIS surgical approaches, especially anterior exposures; Optimization of proximal femoral load transfer with consequent maximization of proximal bone preservation. The purpose of this presentation is to describe the design rationale and characteristics of short (< 120 mm) uncemented primary THA femoral stems and to evaluate the clinical and radiographic results of short stems. Outcome results extending beyond 10 years support the proposition that short stems of appropriate design provide dependable long-term fixation and equivalent clinical results to those currently achievable with cementless stems of conventional length in patients of all ages, sexes and level of activity

Background. Hard-on-hard bearings showed advantages of reduction of wear rates, osteolysis and aseptic loosening in total hip arthroplasty (THA). A new combination of ceramic-on-metal (COM) was developed to compensate the disadvantages of MOM and COC. COM showed good short-term results in vitro and in vivo studies. There was no report of stripe wear and metal ion level elevation. Our study was designed to evaluate the wear pattern of this bearing in early loosening THA. Methods. During January 2009 to December 2010, 121 primary THAs were performed at our institution by single-surgeon, using the same acetabular component and same uncemented femoral stem with a 32-mm modular head. All patients received the information of the bearing couples and made their own decision to choose one of the following bearings: COM, MOP and MOM. The functional outcomes (Harris Hip Score), Serum Co and Cr levels and survival rates were compared between groups at 5 years. The retrievals were tested by optical microscopy and Raman spectroscopy to evaluate the wear pattern in the cases those need revision. Results. At the follow-up 5 years ago, 2 in 10 patients of the COM group received revision due to bearing related complications and loosening although MOP and MOM groups have good clinical follow-up without revision. Metal ion levels were higher in the revision cases. The retrieval analyses revealed metal transfer at weight-bearing area of ceramic femoral head and large wear located on the center of acetabular liner. Spectral shift and broadening of Raman bands demonstrated incorporation of metal ions into the ceramic lattices. Conclusion. Wear pattern in COM was the same as MOM. Severe metal contamination at the ceramic surface might be affected from frictional heating. While the actual causes and contributing factors of high failure rate in COM were not clearly identified, it is important to take precautions in using COM THA

As an increasing number of young, active, large patients are becoming candidates for total hip replacements, there is an increasingly urgent need to identify arthroplasties that will be durable, highly functional and amenable to possible future successful revision. In an era when cemented femoral stems were the primary implant option, the concept of a surface replacement was attractive and, perhaps, appropriate. However, cementless femoral stems of many designs now provide dependable long-term fixation and excellent, near normal function in patients of all ages, sex and level of activity. However, a number of issues related to cementless stem fixation could be further improved: Optimization of load transfer to proximal femur to minimise fracture risk and maximise bone preservation; Elimination of proximal-distal mismatch concerns, including bowed femurs; Facilitation of femoral stem insertion, especially with MIS THA exposures; Facilitation of revision with implants capable of providing durable fixation for active patients. The potential benefits of short stem femoral THA implants include: Ease of insertion; Reproducibility of insertion; Avoidance of issues related to proximal-distal anatomic mismatch or variations in proximal femoral diaphyseal anatomy (e.g. femoral bowing); Facilitation of MIS surgical approaches, especially anterior exposures; Optimization of proximal femoral load transfer with consequent maximization of proximal bone preservation. The purpose of this presentation is to describe the design rationale and characteristics of short (< 115 mm) uncemented primary THA femoral stem, to evaluate the clinical and radiographic results of short stems and to discuss the possible drawbacks specific to the use of short stems

Background. The use of robotics in joint arthroplasty was initiated in 1992 with the introduction of the ROBODOC® Surgical Assistant device for planning and active robotic preparation of the femoral canal in THA. From 1993–1996, an FDA trial was undertaken using pin-based fiduciary markers to register the CT to the robot coordinate system. From 2000–2006, a second FDA trial was initiated using a point-to-surface matching “pinless” registration system. Combined, these two studies offer the first long-term follow-up of robot-assisted THA using an active robotic system for preparation of the femoral canal during THA. Methods. Due to the support of an open implant architecture, patients were implanted with either the Depuy AML, Howmedica Osteoloc, or Zimmer VerSys FMT. Combining patients from the two studies, 86 THA's were performed in 63 patients using the active robotic system. Of these 63 patients, 7 were confirmed to have died and 5 have been lost to follow-up, 2 declined to participate due to infirmity, 37 are still recruiting, and 12 are currently enrolled (16 hips). Data collected included: Harris Hip Scale, HSQ-12, WOMAC, UCLA Activity Score, VAS Pain Score as well as radiographic analysis. The demographics at follow-up were:. Results. There were no revisions of the femoral component for aseptic reasons. Of the 16 hips enrolled, only two have required reoperation for head and liner change. Clinical results are given below:. Radiographic analysis found that peri-acetabular osteolysis was present in 12.5% of hips, AP femoral osteolysis was found in 18.8% of hips, above and lateral femoral osteolysis was found in 6.3% of cases. Conclusions. The use of active robotics for preparation of the femoral canal in THA appears safe and effective at a long-term follow-up of 14 years. The clinical results are comparable to or better than other long term studies of cementless femoral stem prostheses in terms of Harris Hip score (Aldinger et al 2003) and WOMAC Pain, Stiffness, and Physical Function score (Popischill and Knahr 2005). Patient recruitment is still ongoing

As an increasing number of young, active, large patients are becoming candidates for total hip replacements, there is an increasingly urgent need to identify arthroplasties that will be durable, highly functional and amenable to possible future successful revision. In an era when cemented femoral stems were the primary implant option, the concept of a surface replacement was attractive and, perhaps, appropriate. However, cementless femoral stems of many designs now provide dependable long-term fixation and excellent, near normal function in patients of all ages, sex and level of activity. However, a number of issues related to cementless stem fixation could be further improved: Optimization of load transfer to proximal femur to minimise fracture risk and maximise bone preservation; Elimination of proximal-distal mismatch concerns, including bowed femurs; Facilitation of femoral stem insertion, especially with MIS THA exposures; Facilitation of revision with implants capable of providing durable fixation for active patients. The potential benefits of short stem femoral THA implants include: Ease of insertion; Reproducibility of insertion; Avoidance of issues related to proximal-distal anatomic mismatch or variations in proximal femoral diaphyseal anatomy (e.g. femoral bowing); Facilitation of MIS surgical approaches, especially anterior exposures; Optimization of proximal femoral load transfer with consequent maximization of proximal bone preservation. The purpose of this presentation is to describe the design rationale and characteristics of short (<115mm) uncemented primary THA femoral stem, to evaluate the clinical and radiographic results of short stems and to discuss the possible drawbacks specific to the use of short stems

Introduction. Short-stem hip arthroplasty is gaining popularity as a method of treating hip arthritis in biologically younger patients. The potential benefit of using a short-stem is preservation of bone in the proximal femur for a future revision. We have compared the early clinical and radiological results of a short-stem hip arthroplasty versus a conventional total hip arthroplasty (THA) using a standard length femoral prosthesis with particular focus on functional outcome. Methods. We evaluated a prospectively collected data on consecutive series of 249 patients, who underwent uncemented total hip arthroplasty at our institution. They were distributed into 2 groups: Group I, 125 patients received an uncemented short femoral stem (Mini Hip Arthroplasty (MHA), Corin, Cirencester) and Group II, 124 patients received a conventional uncemented femoral stem (Accolade, Stryker, Michigan) with mean follow up of 3.2 years (2–4). The characteristics of the two groups have been presented in Table I. Evaluation was based on plain radiographs performed at 6 months, 1 year and 2 years postoperatively, while their clinical status was assessed using the modified Harris hip score (mHHS) preoperatively and postoperatively at 6 weeks, 6 months, 1-year, 2-years and annually thereafter. Results. The outcome measures and complications in the two groups are presented in Table II. The mHHS was split into their two components (pain and function) to evaluate any differences between the groups. The postoperative results for pain were similar in both groups (p > 0.05), but the functional element of mHHS was significantly better (p < 0.05)* in Group I compared to Group II. This difference however did not reach the level of the minimum clinically important difference. All femoral stems showed radiographic evidence of bony ingrowth. No evidence of stem subsidence was found in any of the patients. One femoral implant was revised for infection in Group II. Conclusion. Our study suggests that the results of short-stem hip arthroplasty are comparable to conventional uncemented THA in the short-term. The functional outcome scores appear to be better in the short-stem group compared to the conventional group, but the difference is not clinically relevant. Short-stem hip arthroplasty can be an optimal choice for use in younger patients with good bone quality, who are expected to require revision in the future

As an increasing number of young, active, large patients are becoming candidates for total hip replacements, there is an increasingly urgent need to identify arthroplasties that will be durable, highly functional and amenable to possible future successful revision. In an era when cemented femoral stems were the primary implant option, the concept of a surface replacement was attractive and, perhaps, appropriate. However, cementless femoral stems of many designs now provide dependable long-term fixation and excellent, near normal function in patients of all ages, sex and level of activity. However, a number of issues related to cementless stem fixation could be further improved: Optimisation of load transfer to proximal femur to minimise fracture risk and maximise bone preservation; Elimination of proximal-distal mismatch concerns, including bowed femurs; Facilitation of femoral stem insertion, especially with MIS THA exposures; Facilitation of revision with implants capable of providing durable fixation for active patients. The potential benefits of short stem femoral THA implants include: Ease of insertion; Reproducibility of insertion; Avoidance of issues related to proximal-distal anatomic mismatch or variations in proximal femoral diaphyseal anatomy (e.g. femoral bowing); Facilitation of MIS surgical approaches, especially anterior exposures; Optimisation of proximal femoral load transfer with consequent maximisation of proximal bone preservation. The purpose of this presentation is to describe the design rationale and characteristics of short (< 115mm) uncemented primary THA femoral stem, to evaluate the clinical and radiographic results of short stems and to discuss the possible drawbacks specific to the use of short stems

25 patients in age group (25–40yrs), 15 males, 10 females were implanted with a short metaphyseal cementless stem (‘Proxima’®, Depuy) and cementless acetabular cup. The average follow up was 2.3 years (1.4–2.5 yrs). Clinical evaluation using Harris Hip Score, Radiological evaluation and Bone Mineral Density were evaluated at 2weeks, 6 months, 12 months and yearly thereafter. a new zonal method suitable for short stem was used for radiological evaluation. The mean Harris Hip score improved from 44 to 95 at final follow up. There was no evidence of any radiolucent lines or osteolysis around the stems. All the stems showed evidence of osseointegration at one year follow up. There was no decrease in bone mineral density around the stems. The Short Metaphyseal cementless femoral stem is a bone conserving as well as bone preserving option for young patients especially in those in whom surface replacement is not an option