Are short-stem prostheses superior to conventional stem prostheses in primary total hip arthroplasty? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Objective Cementless total hip arthroplasty (THA) is associated with reliable clinical results and high patient satisfaction. Short-stem prostheses (SS) were designed to achieve superior preservation of proximal bone stock and stability compared with those of conventional-stem prostheses (CS). This meta-analysis was conducted to determine the proximal bone remodelling, revision rate, Harris Hip Score, radiolucent line and maximum total point motion values of both SS and CS for primary THA. Method Relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving SS and CS in primary THA were identified from electronic databases, such as EMBASE, PubMed and the Cochrane Library. Result Ultimately, 12 RCTs involving 1130 patients (1387 hips) were included. The results showed that compared with CS, SS resulted in less bone mineral density (BMD) changes in Gruen zone 7 at 1 year and 2 years postoperatively (mean difference (MD)=5.11; 95% CI, 1.61, 8.61; P=0.30; and MD=4.90; 95% CI, 1.01, 8.79; P=0.17, respectively). No difference in BMD changes was found for Gruen zone 1 (MD=2.66; 95% CI, −3.31, 8.64; P<0.00001), and no differences were observed for the revision rate (relative risk (RR)=1.52; 95% CI, 0.71, 3.26; P=0.94), Harris Hip Score (MD=−0.38; 95% CI, −1.02, 0.26; P=0.89) or stem migration (MD=0.02; 95% CI, −0.07, 0.11; P=0.04). Conclusion Our results suggest that compared with CS, SS may provide superior bone remodelling and similar survival rates and clinical outcomes. However, the short-term follow-up of the included studies was inadequate to determine the long-term performance of SS.

[1]  G. Paiement,et al.  Increasing Burden of Total Hip Arthroplasty Revisions in Patients Between 45 and 64 Years of Age , 2018, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[2]  L. Felli,et al.  Femoral revision with primary cementless stems: a systematic review of the literature , 2017, MUSCULOSKELETAL SURGERY.

[3]  J. Schilcher,et al.  No Difference in Periprosthetic Bone Loss and Fixation Between a Standard-Length Stem and a Shorter Version in Cementless Total Hip Arthroplasty. A Randomized Controlled Trial. , 2017, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[4]  Peng Tian,et al.  Partial versus early full weight bearing after uncemented total hip arthroplasty: a meta-analysis , 2017, Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research.

[5]  T. Muneta,et al.  Comparison of Bone Remodeling Between an Anatomic Short Stem and a Straight Stem in 1-Stage Bilateral Total Hip Arthroplasty. , 2017, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[6]  Kevin M Towle,et al.  An Assessment of Gender-Specific Risk of Implant Revision After Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. , 2016, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[7]  Fan Wang,et al.  Letter 1: Meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing laparoscopic with open mesh repair of recurrent inguinal hernia (Br J Surg 2010; 97: 4–11) , 2010, The British journal of surgery.

[8]  Tomoyuki Saito,et al.  Difference in Postoperative Periprosthetic Bone Mineral Density Changes Between 3 Major Designs of Uncemented Stems: A 3-Year Follow-Up Study. , 2016, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[9]  Young-Hoo Kim,et al.  Ultrashort versus Conventional Anatomic Cementless Femoral Stems in the Same Patients Younger Than 55 Years , 2016, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[10]  A. Stark,et al.  Lower periprosthetic bone loss and good fixation of an ultra-short stem compared to a conventional stem in uncemented total hip arthroplasty , 2015, Acta orthopaedica.

[11]  D. Naudie,et al.  A randomised trial comparing a short and a standard-length metaphyseal engaging cementless femoral stem using radiostereometric analysis. , 2015, The bone & joint journal.

[12]  M. Sibinski,et al.  Periprosthetic bone remodeling around short stem. , 2015, Orthopedics.

[13]  R. Bieger,et al.  Bone remodelling after femoral short stem implantation in total hip arthroplasty: 1-year results from a randomized DEXA study , 2015, Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery.

[14]  Michael A Mont,et al.  Short bone-conserving stems in cementless hip arthroplasty. , 2014, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[15]  P. von Roth,et al.  Reproducibility of femoral offset following short stem and straight stem total hip arthroplasty. , 2014, Orthopedics.

[16]  M. Rickert,et al.  Changes of periprosthetic bone density after a cementless short hip stem: a clinical and radiological analysis , 2014, International Orthopaedics.

[17]  R. Poolman,et al.  Revision rate after short-stem total hip arthroplasty , 2014, Acta orthopaedica.

[18]  U. Tarantino,et al.  Osseointegration of Fitmore stem in total hip arthroplasty. , 2014, Journal of clinical densitometry : the official journal of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry.

[19]  P. O'loughlin,et al.  Eleven-year results of the anatomic coated CFP stem in primary total hip arthroplasty. , 2013, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[20]  S. Stulberg,et al.  Stable, dependable fixation of short-stem femoral implants at 5 years. , 2013, Orthopedics.

[21]  P. Sessa,et al.  Thigh pain, subsidence and survival using a short cementless femoral stem with pure metaphyseal fixation at minimum 9-year follow-up. , 2013, Orthopaedics & traumatology, surgery & research : OTSR.

[22]  P. Mattsson,et al.  A prospective cohort study on the short collum femoris-preserving (CFP) stem using RSA and DXA , 2013, Acta orthopaedica.

[23]  B. Koes,et al.  Survival of Short Hip Stems with A “Modern”, Trochanter-Sparing Design - A Systematic Literature Review , 2012, Hip international : the journal of clinical and experimental research on hip pathology and therapy.

[24]  Y.H. Kim,et al.  A comparison of a conventional versus a short, anatomical metaphyseal-fitting cementless femoral stem in the treatment of patients with a fracture of the femoral neck. , 2012, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[25]  Joanne B. Adams,et al.  A Short Tapered Stem Reduces Intraoperative Complications in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty , 2012, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[26]  S. Stulberg,et al.  Stable Fixation of Short-stem Femoral Implants in Patients 70 Years and Older , 2012, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[27]  Henning Windhagen,et al.  Bone remodelling around the Metha short stem in total hip arthroplasty: a prospective dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry study , 2012, International Orthopaedics.

[28]  J. Sterne,et al.  The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials , 2011, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[29]  Young-Hoo Kim,et al.  Comparison of bone mineral density changes around short, metaphyseal-fitting, and conventional cementless anatomical femoral components. , 2011, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[30]  C. Merle,et al.  Late peri-prosthetic femoral fracture as a major mode of failure in uncemented primary hip replacement. , 2011, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[31]  A. Eskelinen,et al.  Cemented versus cementless total hip replacements in patients fifty-five years of age or older with rheumatoid arthritis. , 2011, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[32]  M. Gillies,et al.  Primary and long-term stability of a short-stem hip implant , 2010, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part H, Journal of engineering in medicine.

[33]  N. Santori,et al.  Mid-term results of a custom-made short proximal loading femoral component. , 2010, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[34]  R. Pochampally,et al.  Derivation and characterization of an extra-axial chordoma cell line (EACH-1) from a scapular tumor. , 2010, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[35]  D. Moher,et al.  Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. , 2010, International journal of surgery.

[36]  K. An,et al.  Bone remodeling characteristics of a short-stemmed total hip replacement. , 2009, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[37]  J. Callaghan,et al.  Second-generation Extensively Porous-coated THA Stems at Minimum 10-year Followup , 2009, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[38]  S. Kurtz,et al.  Future Young Patient Demand for Primary and Revision Joint Replacement: National Projections from 2010 to 2030 , 2009, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[39]  C. Albanese,et al.  Periprosthetic DXA after total hip arthroplasty with short vs. ultra-short custom-made femoral stems , 2009, Acta orthopaedica.

[40]  Michael M Morlock,et al.  A new short uncemented, proximally fixed anatomic femoral implant with a prominent lateral flare: design rationals and study design of an international clinical trial , 2008, BMC musculoskeletal disorders.

[41]  Christopher C. Rokahr,et al.  Maintenance of bone mineral density after implantation of a femoral neck hip prosthesis , 2008, BMC musculoskeletal disorders.

[42]  H. Lindahl,et al.  Epidemiology of periprosthetic femur fracture around a total hip arthroplasty. , 2007, Injury.

[43]  R. Scholz,et al.  Kurzschäfte in der Hüftendoprothetik , 2007, Der Orthopäde.

[44]  Y.H. Kim,et al.  Changes in the bone mineral density in the acetabulum and proximal femur after cementless total hip replacement: alumina-on-alumina versus alumina-on-polyethylene articulation. , 2007, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[45]  G. Pap,et al.  Contributions of authors , 2007 .

[46]  W. Capello,et al.  Hydroxyapatite-coated Femoral Components: 15-Year Minimum Followup , 2006, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[47]  D. Wood,et al.  No Increased Migration in Cups with Ceramic-on-Ceramic Bearing: An RSA Study , 2006, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[48]  Ulrich Simon,et al.  Changes in strain distribution of loaded proximal femora caused by different types of cementless femoral stems. , 2006, Clinical biomechanics.

[49]  P. Emans,et al.  Comparison of two hydroxyapatite-coated femoral stems: clinical, functional, and bone densitometry evaluation of patients randomized to a regular or modified hydroxyapatite-coated stem aimed at proximal fixation. , 2006, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[50]  L. Weidenhielm,et al.  Stepwise introduction of a bone-conserving osseointegrated hip arthroplasty using RSA and a randomized study: I. Preliminary investigations—52 patients followed for 3 years , 2006, Acta orthopaedica.

[51]  A. Glassman,et al.  The Case for Porous-Coated Hip Implants , 2006 .

[52]  C. Lavernia,et al.  Thigh pain in primary total hip arthroplasty: the effects of elastic moduli. , 2004, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[53]  F Kainberger,et al.  Changes in bone mineral density in the proximal femur after cementless total hip arthroplasty. A five-year longitudinal study. , 2004, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[54]  M. Lukoschek,et al.  A ten- to 15-year follow-up of the cementless spotorno stem. , 2003, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[55]  Young-Hoo Kim,et al.  Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty with a Second-Generation Cementless Total Hip Prosthesis in Patients Younger Than Fifty Years of Age , 2003, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[56]  J. Fetto,et al.  The effect of a lateral flare feature on implant stability , 2002, International Orthopaedics.

[57]  J. Jurvelin,et al.  Monitoring of Periprosthetic BMD After Uncemented Total Hip Arthroplasty with Dual‐Energy X‐Ray Absorptiometry—a 3‐Year Follow‐Up Study , 2001, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[58]  M. Santare,et al.  Analysis of a femoral hip prosthesis designed to reduce stress shielding. , 2000, Journal of biomechanics.

[59]  L. Dorr,et al.  Structural and cellular assessment of bone quality of proximal femur. , 1993, Bone.

[60]  C. Engh,et al.  The case for porous-coated hip implants. The femoral side. , 1990, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[61]  B F Morrey,et al.  Short-stemmed uncemented femoral component for primary hip arthroplasty. , 1989, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[62]  C. Engh,et al.  Porous-coated hip replacement. The factors governing bone ingrowth, stress shielding, and clinical results. , 1987, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.