Ten-Year Survivorship and Risk of Periprosthetic Fracture of a Cementless Tapered Stem

A Radiographic Evaluation of Short Monolithic Femoral Hip Stem (SMF) for Dysplastic Osteoarthritis: Does Stem Alignment Influence on the Stability?

“…Stem alignment vs. stress shielding [14]. 0 (0%), 3 (20%) 9 (60%), 0 (0%) 0 (0%), 0 (0%) 0 (0%), 0 (0%) 0 (0%), 0 (0%) 0 (0%), 2 (13%) 0 (0%), 0 (0%) 0 (0%), 4 (19%) 9 (43%), 0 (0%) 1 (5%), 0 (0%) 0 (0%), 0 (0%) 0 (0%), 0 (0%) 0 (0%), 2 (10%) 0 (0%), 0 (0%) 0 (0%), 1 (17%) 0 (0%), 0 (0%) 1 (17%), 0 (0%) 0 (0%), 0 (0%) 0 (0%), 0 (0%) 0 (0%), 0 (0%) 0 (0%), 0 (0%) 0, 2 (29%) 6 (86%), 0 (0%) 0 (0%), 0 (0%) 0 (0%), 0 (0%) 0 (0%), 0 (0%) 0 (0%), 0 (0%) 0 (0%), 0 (0%) 0 (0%), 2 (38%) 7 (100%), 0 (0%) 0 (0%), 0 (0%) 0 (0%), 0 (0%) 0 (0%), 0 (0%) 0 (0%), 0 (0%) 0 (0%), 0 (0%) 0 (0%), 1 (100%) 1 (100%), 0 (0%) 0 (0%), 0 (0%) 0 (0%), 0 (0%) 0 (0%), 0 (0%) 0 (0%), 0 (0%) 0 (0%), 0 (0%) 0 (0%), 1 (7%) 0 (0%), 8 (53%) 2 (13%), 0 (0%) 1 (7%), 1 (7%) 0 (0%), 1 (7%) 0 (0%), 1 (7%) 0 (0%), 1 (7%) 0 (0%), 1 (5%) 0 (0%), 8 (38%) 2 (10%), 0 (0%) 1 (5%), 1 (5%) 0 (0%), 1 (5%) 0 (0%), 1 (5%) 0 (0%), 1 (5%) 0 (0%), 0 (0%) 0 (0%), 0 (0%) 0 (0%), 0 (0%) 0 (0%), 1 (17%) 0 (0%), 0 (0%) 0 (0%), 0 (0%) 0 (0%), 0 (0%) 1 (14%), 0 (0%) 3 (43%), 5 (71%) 4 (57%), 1 (14%) 2 (29%), 1 (14%) 0 (0%), 3 (43%) 2 (29%), 1 (14%) 1 (14%), 0 (0%) 1 (13%), 0 (0%) 3 (38%), 6 (75%) 4 (50%), 1 (13%) 3 (38%), 1 (13%) 0 (0%), 4 (50%) 3 (38%), 2 (25%) 1 (13%), 0 (0%) 0 (0%), 0 (0%) 0 (0%), 1 (100%) 0 (0%), 0 (0%) 1 (100%), 0 (0%) 0 (0%), 1 (100%) 1 (100%), 1 (100%) 0 (0%), 0 (0%) 0, 1 (5%), 0, 8 (53%) 2 (13%), 0 (0%) 1 (5%), 1 (7%) 0 (0%), 7 (47%) 0 (0%), 1 (5%) 0 (0%), 1 (5%) 0 (0%), 1 (5%) 5 (24%), 12 (57%) 6 (29%), 0 (0%) 1 (5%), 1 (5%) 0 (0%), 7 (33%) 0 (0%), 4 (19%) 0 (0%), 1 (5%) 0 (0%), 0 (0%) 5 (83%), 4 (67%) 4 (67%), 3 (50%) 0 (0%), 0 (0%) 0 (0%), 0 (0%) 0 (0%), 3 (50%) 0 (0%), 0 (0%) 0 (0%), 1 (14%) 4 (57%), 1 (14%) 0 (0%), 0 (0%) 0 (13%), 1 (14%) 0 (0%), 3 (43%) 2 (29%), 1 (14%) 0 (0%), 1 (14%) 0 (0%), 1 (13%) 4 (50%), 2 (25%) 0 (0%), 0 (0%) 1 (13%), 1 (13%) 0 (0%), 4 (50%) 3 (38%), 2 (25%) 0 (0%), 1 (13%) 0 (0%), 0 (0%) 0 (0%), 1 (100%) 0 (0%), 0 (0%) 1 (100%), 0 (0%) 0 (0%), 1 (100%), 1 (100%), 1 (100%) 0 (0%), 0 (0%) term provides only for short term evaluation, while mid-or long-term result of this stem is relatively few in the database, this study can be evaluated as the report for dysplastic hips [6] [7] [20]. SMF TM stem is a proximal fixation type as its proximal surface structure to aim at bone affinity indicates [6] [7].…”

“…Each type has different concept to obtain the initial and long-term stability in the femur [4] [5]. Short Monolithic Femoral hip stem (SMF TM ) (Smith & Nephew, Inc., Memphis, TN, USA) (Figure 1) is a short stem and was improved as a modification of SYNERGY Stem (Smith & Nephew, Inc.) [6]. SMF TM is a proximal fixation type stem and has double tapered shape in the medial-lateral and anterior-posterior planes to provide good proximal fit and fixation [7].…”

Design and Verification of a Metaphyseal Filling Stem for Total Hip Arthroplasty Based on Novel Measurements of Proximal Femoral Anatomy

“…[ 6 ] Several variations have followed and gained popularity due to ease of use, bone-preserving broaching systems, and >90% 10-year survivorship. [ 4 , [7] , [8] , [9] ] The geometry of the metaphyseal filling stem effectively loads the proximal femur and provides immediate axial and rotational stability by relying on fixation in both the medial-lateral (ML) and anterior-posterior (AP) planes of the proximal femur. While prior studies have analyzed the proximal femur in the ML plane, there is limited data to our knowledge on the anatomy of the AP dimensions as it relates to stem placement.…”