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.

Purpose: In uncemented total hip arthroplasty, stem design is one of the important factors influencing bone remodeling. The purpose of this study was to determine the differences in bone remodeling between metaphyseal and diaphyseal fit stems.

Methods: Twenty-three patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (28 hips) with metaphyseal fit stems were matched to 27 patients (32 hips) undergoing uncemented total hip arthroplasty with diaphyseal fit stems. Preoperative radiographs were assessed for canal fill, canal shape, and bone quality. Postoperative radiographs were assessed for frequency and time of appearance of peri-prosthetic bone remodeling including spot welds, cortical hypertrophy and pedestal formation. All patients were examined by a modified Harris Hip Score.

Results: The proximal canal shape and bone quality were similar in both groups. There was no difference in the frequency of spot welds at 1 year and 2 years. Spot welds were mainly located in Gruen zone 1. Cortical hypertrophy was greater (p < 0.05) at 6 months, 1 year and 2 years with the metaphyseal fit stem. Cortical hypertrophy was found only in Gruen zones 3 and 5. Halo pedestal formation was greater (p < 0.05) at 6 months with the metaphyseal fit stem but not at 1 year and 2 years. Calcar rounding was observed in 25 hips (90.0%) with metaphyseal fit stems and twenty hips (62.5%) with diaphyseal fit stems. At the last follow-up, average HHS was similar (90.6 +/− 1.5 / 91.7 +/− 1.7; metaphyseal / diaphyseal fit stems). No patient developed aseptic loosening.

Conclusions: This is the first study to determine differences in bone remodeling between a metaphyseal and a diaphyseal fixed stem in uncemented THA. After one year, the only significant difference between these two groups was cortical hypertrophy, which was greater in patients undergoing metaphyseal fit stem insertion. Both stem designs demonstrated bone remodeling with no differences in spot welds or pedestal formation. At two years, there was no functional difference between these two patient groups. To further elucidate the relation between radiographic and clinical results, longer term follow-up is required.