Interest of short implants in hip arthroplasty for osteonecrosis of the femoral head: comparative study “uncemented short” vs “cemented conventional” femoral stems

Abstract

Uncemented short stems total hip arthroplasties may be an interesting alternative to more conventional implants with similar functional results but less stress shielding and a bone stock economy in this young population of patients.

Sleep improvement after hip arthroplasty: a study on short-stem prosthesis

“…However, the difference in the quality of life after shortstem and standard-stem hip arthroplasty has already been reviewed in several studies that suggest similar functional outcome with slight benefit for short stem prosthesis in younger patients due to faster post-operative recovery as well as less stress shielding [9,10,24,25]. A supplement reduction of thigh pain using short-stem hip arthroplasty might has an effect on sleep improvement, but existing studies show no significant difference compared with conventional standardstem hip arthroplasty [26].…”

Hip osteonecrosis: stem cells for life or behead and arthroplasty?

“…Other new technologies as short stems [34,35] also are now in evaluation in the indication of osteonecrosis to preserve bone stock. Another aspect to consider is that patients may have had some operations before the THA or may have wait a long time before arthroplasty which may in some circumstances worsen the functional result [36].…”

The clinical outcome of the Metha short hip stem: a systematic scoping review

“…[2][3][4] The cementless short femoral stems have been introduced for the primary treatment of young or active middle-aged patients who were suffering from osteoarthritis. [5][6][7] They were designed to bridge the gap between conventional straight design stems and hip resurfacing prostheses. These stems have been described as bone-preserving, as they have been designed to preserve the proximal bone stock as well as the femoral canal and femoral elasticity.…”

“…10,11 These stems allowed for more physiological proximal loading, since they managed to distribute stress forces only to the metaphysis of the femur. 5,9 As a result, this type of implants seemed to reduce the phenomenon of stress shielding. 8 Also, the absence of the diaphyseal anchorage in these kind of stems might possibly reduce postoperative thigh pain which has been reported as a complication of the conventional stems.…”

“…1 Moreover, the short stems which are available in the market significantly differ, both in their designs as well as their outcomes. 5 These stems have been categorised into different groups according to Johns Hopkins University into type 1: femoral neck only (1A Wedge, 1B Cylindrical, 1C Threaded), type 2: calcar loading (2A Trapezoidal, 2B Rounded, 2C Threaded, 2D Thrust Plate), type 3: lateral flare calcar loading and type 4: shortened tapered. 13 Although it may seem that shortening reduces mechanical stability, 14 short stems, intended to conserve bone stock and theoretically to optimise physiological stress distribution in the femur under loading, are meeting with renewed interest.…”