Similar femoral stem fixation but less metaphyseal loss of bone mineral density with a taper-wedge design and diaphyseal bone preservation with a long and round-tapered design: a 5-year randomized RSA and DXA study of 50 patients
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2025.43907Keywords:
BMD, Bone mineral density, Hip, Implants, Radiostereometric analysis, RSA, Short stemAbstract
Background and purpose: The new Tri-Lock bone -preserving stem with a collarless proximal-coated tapered-wedge design was compared with a classic well-proven collarless proximal-coated long and round-tapered design. Our primary aim was to compare femoral stem fixation (subsidence) of the Tri-Lock stem with the classic Summit stem, and secondarily to compare the change in periprosthetic bone mineral density (BMD) and PROMS between stem groups.
Methods: In a patient-blinded randomized controlled trial, 52 patients at mean age 60 (SD 6) received cementless Tri-Lock (n = 26) or Summit (n = 26) femoral stems with a cementless Pinnacle cup, a cross-linked polyethylene liner, and a CoCr head. Patients were followed for 5 years with radiostereometric analysis (RSA), dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). We measured mean (CI) values of migration and periprosthetic bone mineral density and calculated between group differences.
Results: At 2-year follow-up, the mean difference in subsidence was 0.14 mm (95% confidence interval [CI] –0.27 to 0.56) and below the chosen minimal clinically important difference of 0.6 mm. At 5-year follow-up, for the Tri-Lock and Summit stems, the mean subsidence was 0.38 (CI 0.04–0.72) and 0.24 (CI 0.09–0.57), and the mean retroversion was 1.68° (CI 0.80–2.55) and 1.53° (CI 0.68–2.37), respectively. There was initial periprosthetic BMD loss for both stems. At 5-year follow-up, the mean metaphyseal bone loss was minimal for the Tri-Lock stem (zone 1: –2.8% vs –11.5%) while the Summit stem preserved the medial diaphyseal bone better (zone 6: –7.1% vs –13.6%). At the medial stem tip, BMD was increased with the Summit stem (zone 5: +3.4% vs –1.5%). At 5-year follow-up, median EQ5D was 1 in both groups and median Oxford Hip Score was 47 (Tri-Lock) and 45 (Summit) with no statistical significant differences between groups.
Conclusion: The Tri-Lock and the Summit stems displayed similar migration until mid-term follow-up. At 3 months both stems had lost metaphyseal periprosthetic bone mineral density (BMD). During the following years, the new design regained more metaphyseal BMD. Contrarily, the long and round-tapered stem design regained or even increased diaphyseal BMD. PROM scores improved beyond the reference level for both groups.
Downloads
References
Molli R G, Lombardi A V, Jr, Berend K R, Adams J B, Sneller M A. A short tapered stem reduces intraoperative complications in primary total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2012; 470(2): 450-61. doi: 10.1007/s11999-011-2068-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-011-2068-7
Thien T M, Chatziagorou G, Garellick G, Furnes O, Havelin L I, Mäkelä K, et al. Periprosthetic femoral fracture within two years after total hip replacement: analysis of 437,629 operations in the nordic arthroplasty register association database. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2014; 96(19): e167. doi: 10.2106/jbjs.M.00643. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.M.00643
Changoor A, Suderman R P, Alshaygy I, Fuhrmann A, Akens M K, Safir O, et al. Irregular porous titanium enhances implant stability and bone ingrowth in an intra-articular ovine model. J Orthop Res 2022; 40(10): 2294-307. doi: 10.1002/jor.25272. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.25272
Merle C, Streit M R, Volz C, Pritsch M, Gotterbarm T, Aldinger P R. Bone remodeling around stable uncemented titanium stems during the second decade after total hip arthroplasty: a DXA study at 12 and 17 years. Osteoporos Int 2011; 22(11): 2879-86. doi: 10.1007/s00198-010-1483-z. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-010-1483-z
Burchard R, Graw J A, Soost C, Schmitt J. Stress shielding effect after total hip arthroplasty varies between combinations of stem design and stiffness: a comparing biomechanical finite element analysis. International Orthopaedics 2023; 47(8): 1981-7. doi: 10.1007/s00264-023-05825-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-023-05825-7
Aro H T, Alm J J, Moritz N, Makinen T J, Lankinen P. Low BMD affects initial stability and delays stem osseointegration in cementless total hip arthroplasty in women: a 2-year RSA study of 39 patients. Acta Orthop 2012; 83(2): 107-14. doi: 10.3109/17453674.2012.678798. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2012.678798
Streit M R, Haeussler D, Bruckner T, Proctor T, Innmann M M, Merle C, et al. Early migration predicts aseptic loosening of cementless femoral stems: a long-term study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2016; 474(7): 1697-706. doi: 10.1007/s11999-016-4857-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-016-4857-5
Mjöberg B, Brismar J, Hansson L I, Pettersson H, Selvik G, Onnerfält R. Definition of endoprosthetic loosening: comparison of arthrography, scintigraphy and roentgen stereophotogrammetry in prosthetic hips. Acta Orthop Scand 1985; 56(6): 469-73. doi: 10.3109/17453678508993037. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/17453678508993037
Kärrholm J, Snorrason F. Subsidence, tip, and hump micromovements of noncoated ribbed femoral prostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1993; (287): 50-60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-199302000-00008
Kärrholm J, Borssen B, Löwenhielm G, Snorrason F. Does early micromotion of femoral stem prostheses matter? 4–7-year stereoradiographic follow-up of 84 cemented prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1994; 76(6): 912-17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.76B6.7983118
Malak T T, Broomfield J A, Palmer A J, Hopewell S, Carr A, Brown C, et al. Surrogate markers of long-term outcome in primary total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review. Bone Joint Res 2016; 5(6): 206-14. doi: 10.1302/2046-3758.56.2000568. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/2046-3758.56.2000568
Sessa G, Costarella L, Puma Pagliarello C, Di Stefano A, Sessa A, Testa G, et al. Bone mineral density as a marker of hip implant longevity: a prospective assessment of a cementless stem with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry at twenty years. Int Orthop 2019; 43(1): 71-5. doi: 10.1007/s00264-018-4187-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-4187-1
Nelissen R G, Pijls B G, Karrholm J, Malchau H, Nieuwenhuijse M J, Valstar E R. RSA and registries: the quest for phased introduction of new implants. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011; 93 Suppl 3: 62-5. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.K.00907. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.K.00907
DHR—The Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register. National annual report 2022; 2023. https://danskhoftealloplastikregister.dk/en/publications/annual-reports/
Önsten I, Carlsson A S, Besjakov J. Wear in uncemented porous and cemented polyethylene sockets: a randomised, radiostereometric study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1998; 80(2): 345-50. doi: 10.1302/0301-620x.80b2.8032. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.80B2.0800345
Ulivi M, Orlandini L C, Meroni V, Lombardo M D M, Peretti G M. Clinical performance, patient reported outcome, and radiological results of a short, tapered, porous, proximally coated cementless femoral stem: results up to seven years of follow-up. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33(4): 1133-8. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2017.11.046. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2017.11.046
Tsubosaka M, Hayashi S, Hashimoto S, Takayama K, Kuroda R, Matsumoto T. Patients with a Dorr type C femoral bone require attention for using a Summit cementless stem: results of total hip arthroplasty after a minimum follow-up period of 5 years after insertion of a Summit cementless stem. J Orthop Sci 2018; 23(4): 671-5. doi: 10.1016/j.jos.2018.05.001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jos.2018.05.001
García-Cimbrelo E, Bru-Pomer A, García-Benítez B, Hernández-Blanco M, Vaquero J. Multicentric and prospective study of the Summit cementless stem. Hip Int 2010; 20(Suppl 7): S63-9. doi: 10.1177/11207000100200s712. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5301/HIP.2010.2533
Kaptein B L, Pijls B, Koster L, Kärrholm J, Hull M, Niesen A, et al. Guideline for RSA and CT-RSA implant migration measurements: an update of standardizations and recommendations. Acta Orthop 2024; 95: 256-67. doi: 10.2340/17453674.2024.40709. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2024.40709
Valstar E R, Gill R, Ryd L, Flivik G, Borlin N, Kärrholm J. Guidelines for standardization of radiostereometry (RSA) of implants. Acta Orthop 2005; 76(4): 563-72. doi: 10.1080/17453670510041574. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17453670510041574
Gruen T A, McNeice G M, Amstutz H C. “Modes of failure” of cemented stem-type femoral components: a radiographic analysis of loosening. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1979; (141): 17-27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-197906000-00002
Wittrup-Jensen K U, Lauridsen J, Gudex C, Pedersen K M. Generation of a Danish TTO value set for EQ-5D health states. Scand J Public Health 2009; 37(5): 459-66. doi: 10.1177/1403494809105287. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494809105287
Beard D J, Harris K, Dawson J, Doll H, Murray D W, Carr A J, et al. Meaningful changes for the Oxford hip and knee scores after joint replacement surgery. J Clin Epidemiol 2015; 68(1): 73-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.08.009. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.08.009
Murray D W, Fitzpatrick R, Rogers K, Pandit H, Beard D J, Carr A J, et al. The use of the Oxford hip and knee scores. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2007; 89(8): 1010-14. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.89B8.19424. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.89B8.19424
Acklin Y P, Jenni R, Bereiter H, Thalmann C, Stoffel K. Prospective clinical and radiostereometric analysis of the Fitmore short-stem total hip arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2016; 136(2): 277-84. doi: 10.1007/s00402-015-2401-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-015-2401-9
Rilby K, Nauclér E, Mohaddes M, Kärrholm J. No difference in outcome or migration but greater loss of bone mineral density with the Collum Femoris Preserving stem compared with the Corail stem: a randomized controlled trial with five-year follow-up. Bone Joint J 2022; 104-b(5): 581-8. doi: 10.1302/0301-620x.104b5.Bjj-2021-1539.R1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.104B5.BJJ-2021-1539.R1
Floerkemeier T, Budde S, Lewinski G V, Windhagen H, HurSchler C, Schwarze M. Greater early migration of a short-stem total hip arthroplasty is not associated with an increased risk of osseointegration failure: 5th-year results from a prospective RSA study with 39 patients, a follow-up study. Acta Orthop 2020; 91(3): 266-71. doi: 10.1080/17453674.2020.1732749. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2020.1732749
Liu Y, Wei W X, Zeng Y, Ma J, Yang J, Shen B. Comparison of femoral bone mineral density changes around 3 common designs of cementless stems after total hip arthroplasty: a retrospective cohort study. Orthop Surg 2022; 14(6): 1059-70. doi: 10.1111/os.13265. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/os.13265
Dyreborg K, Sørensen M S, Flivik G, Solgaard S, Petersen M M. Preoperative BMD does not influence femoral stem subsidence of uncemented THA when the femoral T-score is > –2.5. Acta Orthop 2021; 92(5): 538-43. doi: 10.1080/17453674.2021.1920163. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2021.1920163
Liang H D, Yang W Y, Pan J K, Huang H T, Luo M H, Zeng L F, et al. Are short-stem prostheses superior to conventional stem prostheses in primary total hip arthroplasty? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ Open 2018; 8(9): e021649. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-021649. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-021649
de Waard S, van der Vis J, Venema P, Sierevelt I N, Kerkhoffs G, Haverkamp D. Short-term success of proximal bone stock preservation in short hip stems: a systematic review of the literature. EFORT Open Rev 2021; 6(11): 1040-51. doi: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.210030. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/2058-5241.6.210030
Paulsen A, Roos E M, Pedersen A B, Overgaard S. Minimal clinically important improvement (MCII) and patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) in total hip arthroplasty (THA) patients 1 year postoperatively. Acta Orthop 2014; 85(1): 39-48. doi: 10.3109/17453674.2013.867782. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2013.867782
Paulsen A, Odgaard A, Overgaard S. Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Danish version of the Oxford hip score: assessed against generic and disease-specific questionnaires. Bone Joint Res 2012; 1(9): 225-33. doi: 10.1302/2046-3758.19.2000076. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/2046-3758.19.2000076
Knutsen A R, Lau N, Longjohn D B, Ebramzadeh E, Sangiorgio S N. Periprosthetic femoral bone loss in total hip arthroplasty: systematic analysis of the effect of stem design. Hip Int 2017; 27(1): 26-34. doi: 10.5301/hipint.5000413. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5301/hipint.5000413
Lee S W, Kim W Y, Song J H, Kim J H, Lee H H. Factors affecting periprosthetic bone loss after hip arthroplasty. Hip Pelvis 2021; 33(2): 53-61. doi: 10.5371/hp.2021.33.2.53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5371/hp.2021.33.2.53
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Peter Bo Jørgensen, Morten Homilius, Daan Koppens, Torben Bæk Hansen, Maiken Stilling
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
