250 words max Long polished cemented femoral stems, such as the Exeter Hip Revision stem, are one option available to the revision hip arthroplasty surgeon. When proximal bone stock is compromised, distal fixation is often relied upon for stability of the femoral component. In such circumstances, torsional forces can result in debonding and loosening. This study compared the torsional behaviour of a cemented polished and featureless (plain) stem with cemented, polished stems featuring fins or flutes. Nine torsional tests were carried out on each of these three different stem designs. The finned stem construct was significantly stiffer than the fluted stem (mean 24.5 Nm/deg v 17.5 Nm/deg). The plain stem mean stiffness was less than the featured stems (13 Nm/deg), but wide variability lead to no statistically significant difference. The maximum torque of the finned (30.5 Nm) and fluted stems (29 Nm) was significantly higher than the plain stem (10.5 Nm); with no significance to the difference between the finned and fluted stems. Distal stem features may provide a more reliable and greater resistance to torque in polished, cemented revision hip stems. Finned stem features may also increase the stiffness of the construct. Consideration should thus be given to the incorporation of distal stem features in the design of revision hip stems.

Recent NICE guidance recommends use of a well proven cemented femoral stem for hip hemiarthroplasty in management of fractured neck of femur. The Exeter Trauma Stem (ETS) has been designed based on the well proven Exeter hip stem. It has a double taper polished stem design, proclaimed to share geometry and surface finish with the Exeter hip. This study investigated the surface finish of the two stems in order to investigate the hypothesis that they were different. Two ETS and two Exeter stems were examined using a profilometer with a sensitivity of one nanometer. Macroscopic visual inspection showed that the two Exeter stems had significantly smoother surface finish than the ETS stems. The roughness average (RA) values on the ETS stems were approximately an order of magnitude higher than those of the Exeter stems, mean of 0.235μm compared with 0.025μm (p<0.0001). This difference in surface finish has implications for the biomechanical functioning of the stem. Previous change of the Exeter stem to a matt surface-finish in 1976 resulted in a significant increase in stem failure rates and an understanding of the importance of the polished surface-finish in order to function within a taper-slip philosophy. By changing the surface finish in the ETS stem, longevity of the implant may similarly be affected. Clinical results have yet to be published demonstrating this. We recommend the manufacturer reconsiders the surface finish of the ETS stem to ensure it functions as well as the Exeter primary stem with which it shares a design philosophy.