Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Orthopedics. 2018 May 1;41(3):e369-e375. doi: 10.3928/01477447-20180320-02. Epub 2018 Mar 26.

The Proximal and Distal Femoral Canal Geometry Influences Cementless Stem Anchorage and Revision Hip and Knee Implant Stability.

Abstract

Although cementless revision arthroplasty of the hip has become the gold standard, revision arthroplasty of the distal femur is controversial. This study evaluated the anchoring principles of different femoral revision stem designs in extended bone defect situations, taking into account the anatomical conditions of the proximal and distal femur, and the resulting primary stability. Cementless press-fit stems of 4 different designs were implanted in synthetic femurs. The specimens were analyzed by computed tomography and were tested considering axial/torsional stiffness and migration resistance. Different stem designs anchored in different femoral canal geometries achieved comparable primary stability. Despite considerably different anchorage lengths, no difference in migration behavior or stiffness was found. Both in the distal femur and in the proximal femur, the conical stems showed a combination of conical and 3-point anchorage. Regarding the cylindrical stem tested, a much shorter anchorage length was sufficient in the distal femur to achieve comparable primary stability. In the investigated osseous defect model, the stem design (conical vs cylindrical), not the geometry of the femoral canal (proximal vs distal), was decisive regarding the circumferential anchorage length. For the conical stems, it can be postulated that there are reserves available for achieving a conical-circular fixation as a result of the large contact length. For the cylindrical stems, only a small reserve for a stable anchorage can be assumed. [Orthopedics. 2018; 41(3):e369-e375.].

PMID:
29570762
DOI:
10.3928/01477447-20180320-02
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for SLACK Incorporated.
Loading ...
Support Center