Abstract
The aim of our study is to evaluate clinical long-term results and determine changes in periprosthetic bone density of the custom-made hip prostheses Evolution-K® and Adaptiva®. Periprosthetic bone density were evaluated by means of DEXA (LunariDXA- Prodigy® bone densitometer) with a long-term follow-up of 16 (15-18) years (Evolution-K®) in 24 patients and 13 (13-15) years (Adaptiva®) in 41 patients. Evolution- K® had a survival rate of 92% and yielded 79/100 points in Harris Hip Score, a mediocre result. Adaptiva® had a survival rate of 99% and achieved a good score of 88/100 points. Bone density measurements demonstrated the greatest loss of bone density in the proximal regions of interest (ROI) for both prosthesis types (Evolution-K®: -25.8% ROI 1, -40.3% ROI 7; -8.3% ROI 2, -10.4% ROI 6; Adaptiva®: -29.8% ROI 7, -6.8% ROI 6, +14.3% ROI 3, +3.1% ROI 4). Adaptiva® yielded a good clinical result as compared to Evolution-K® with only average clinical results. Both prostheses clearly showed signs of “stress shielding”. Here, the Adaptiva® achieved reduced bone density loss as compared to the Evolution-K®.
Key words: Total hip prostheses, custommade, Evolution-K®, Adaptiva®, long-term results, bone density measurement
Introduction
Nowadays cement-free standard hip prostheses provide very satisfying long-term clinical outcome.1 With these prostheses, primary stability is achieved immediately after surgery by “press fit,” while secondary stability greatly depends on integration of the prosthesis into the bone. The successful bone integration process itself depends on various factors, such as quality of the bone itself,2 anchoring technique, design of the prosthesis and surface characteristics3 that influence “bony ongrowth” or “bony ingrowth”.4 A certain primary stability is needed to avoid unwanted micromovements that could result in reduction of bone integration and aseptic loosening.5 This can be achieved via the “press fit” or “form fit/fill and fit” technology. The “form fit” or “fill and fit” technology aims to improve the primary stability via maximum threedimensional anatomical adaptation of the shaft to the marrow space.4
All designs and modifications aim to reduce stress shielding, which results from altered biomechanical properties after implantation of the prosthesis.6 The primary load area of force transmission runs through the prosthesis and not along the physiological biomechanical route, leading to reduced force load around the proximal part of the prosthesis and thus to bone modification and stress shielding.7,8
The second-generation custom-made prosthesis (CMP) Evolution-K® (CMP-EK) (Fehling, Karlstein, Germany) has a microporous surface corundum-blasted proximal prosthesis shaft that increases surface area. It is fitted to the marrow space three-dimensionally (“fit and fill”) in order to provide the greatest possible contact area and optimal fitting.
Third-generation CMP Adaptiva® (CMP-A) (Fehling, Karlstein, Germany) is a two-dimensionally fitted prosthesis with a rectangular design. Increased rotational stability and even force transmission are further enhanced via three vertical ribs in the proximal ventral shaft. The small width in the sagittal plane allows for spongiosasparing implantation, which improves bony ingrowth.9,10
The primary endpoint of this study is to examine clinical and osteodensitometric long-term results of CMP-EK and CMP-A obtained with the Harris Hip Score (HHS) and the DEXA measuring method. Secondary endpoints are comparison of the two prostheses with each other and with other custom-made prostheses.
Materials and Methods
In this prospective cohort study clinical and osteodensitometric data were collected following implantation of a custom-made femoral stem prothesis.
In the Evolution-K® collective (EK-C) 50 patients were recruited from 05-10/1993 at the Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Tübingen University Hospital. The followup measurements four and five years postoperatively were performed in a collective of 43 patients. The remaining seven patients were excluded due to death (n=2), septic or aseptic loosening leading to replacement of the prosthesis (n=3) or because they had moved away (n=2). Table 1 shows the collective size at the time of the recent follow-up examination 16 years postoperatively, for which 24 patients were enrolled.
In the Adaptiva® collective (A-C) 59 patients were recruited from 01-11/1997 at the Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Tübingen University Hospital. A total of 18 patients had to be excluded for the 13-year postoperative measurements listed in Table 1. Characteristics of the study collective and indications for CMP implantation are also shown in Table 1.
Median follow-up in the EK-C was 16 (15-18) and 13 (13-15) years in the A-C. Clinical examination included HHS, a standardized method aimed at quantifying various parameters, with which 91 points can be achieved from subjective criteria such as pain or functional impairment, and nine points from objective criteria such as range of motion or deformities.11 This was supplemented by a precise questionnaire and clinical examination.
Osteodensitometric measurements were conducted with the GE Lunar iDXAProdigy ® apparatus (GE Healthcare, Madison, WI, USA) and permit quantitative statements to be made largely irrespective of consistency and quantity of the surrounding soft tissue. The resulting BMD denotes bone mass per scanned area as g/cm.2,12 For means of comparability of periprosthetic BMD, Gruen-analysis was performed.13 For this purpose, the regions surrounding the prosthesis stem are divided into seven regions of interest (ROI) (Figure 1). ROI 7, the medial proximal ROI, was then modified by reducing the frontal surface, so that the area resected during femoral neck osteotomy is not considered. The cranial margin of this ROI was congruent to the end of the osteotomy line. This guaranteed pre- and postoperative comparability.
The statistical analysis was performed with “EXCEL 2010” (Microsoft, Redmond, WA, USA) and “SPSS for windows” (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).
First, normal distribution was checked using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test followed by testing the homogeneity of variance using the Levene test. For testing significance Student’s T test or the MannWhitney U test was applied depending on the presence or absence of normal distribution. The requirements for using Student’s T test are normal distribution and homogeneity of variety of data. The Mann-Whitney U test is a parameter-free statistical homogeneity test with the homogeneity of variance requiring homogeneity of variance, but not normal distribution of data.
Figure 1.
A: CMP-Evolution-K®; B: Regions of interest 1-7 in the osteodensitometric measurement (Evolution-K®); C: CMP-Adaptiva® (from Leichtle et al.10), D: Regions of interest 1-7 in the osteodensitometric measurement (Adaptiva®).
Table 1.
Patient and study collective.
| Evolution-K® | Adaptiva® | P | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Examined at current time | 24 | 41 | |
| Deceased | 9 | 7 | |
| CMP replaced (aseptic loosening) | 4 | 1 | |
| Emigrated | 3 | 0 | |
| Health limitations | 5 | 5 | |
| Failure to contact/other | 5 | 5 | |
| Total | 50 | 59 | |
| Gender (n/%) | 0.924 | ||
| Male | 12(50) | 21(51) | |
| Memale | 12(50) | 20(49) | |
| Age (years) | 70.5 (50-80; IQR: 9) | 70 (55-79; IQR: 13) | 0.851 |
| Height (cm) | 166 (148-185; IQR: 15) | 171 (147-185; IQR: 11) | 0.721 |
| Weight (kg/m2) | 26.6 (18.3-45.7; IQR: 20) | 28.4 (17-40.2; IQR: 26) | 0.961 |
| Comorbidities (n/%) | |||
| Orthopedic | 22(92) | 38(92) | 0.887 |
| Medical | 19(79) | 30(73) | 0.588 |
| Side of study prosthesis (n/%) | 0.457 | ||
| Right | 14(58) | 20(49) | |
| Left | 10(42) | 21(51) | |
| Preoperative diagnoses (t=PE) (n/%) | 0.088 | 0.088 | |
| Idiopathic coxarthrosis | 26(60) | 45(76) | |
| Secondary coxarthrosis | 17(40) | 14(24) | |
| Preoperative diagnoses (t=CE) (n/%) | 0.121 | 0.121 | |
| Idiopathic coxarthrosis | 13(54) | 30(73) | |
| Secondary coxarthrosis | 11(46) | 11(27) |
PE=Previous examination. CE=Current examination.
Ethics approval for conduct of the study in compliance with protection of the rights and welfare of human subjects participating in medical research according to the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki was obtained (Ethics review board of Tübingen University, Germany, 164/97) and complies with the criteria of the STROCSS guideline for cohort studies in surgery.14 The study is registered in the German Clinical Trials register (DRKS00023140). Before commencing the study informed written consent was obtained.
Results
Overall survival rates (SR) were 92% at CMP-EK with four revisions and 99% at CMP-A with one revision due to aseptic loosening (Table 2).
With regard to clinical outcome, CMPEK resulted in an HHS of 78.7 (25.5-96.7; 17.2) points and CMP-A in 87.7 (45.6-99.6; 13.1) points (p=0.032).
Pain was reported by 41.7% of CMP-EK patients as opposed to 19.5% of CMP-A (OR 2.95; 95 %CI 0.96-9.03; p=0.055). Pain in the EK-C was characterized as stress-related by 41.7% and constant by 12.5% of the cohort. In the A-C 9.8% of the cohort experienced stress-related pain and 2.4% reported constant pain.
Occasional use of analgesics was higher in the EK-C (16.7%), while sustained use was lower (4.2%), as compared to the A-C. In the latter cohort, occasional analgesic consumption was reported by 4.9% of the patients and permanent use by 9.8%. No significance difference was seen between patients who needed analgesics and patients who did not need analgesics (p=0.52). In order to rule out other reasons for pain medication intake, orthopedic and medical comorbidities were evaluated. No significant differences within the collectives were found regarding orthopedic ailments (p=0.883) or ailments from the internal medicine spectrum (p=0.591). Load capacity of the hip was surveyed, too and showed that 62.5% of the EK-C as compared to 39% of the A-C reported practicing sports regularly, while 50% versus 24.4%, respectively, reported regularly participating in a special hip gymnastics or physiotherapy program.
Walking distance was unimpaired in 79.2% (Evolution-K®) and 82.9% (Adaptiva®) of the patients, with 4.2% (Evolution-K®) and 7.3% (Adaptiva®) quantifying their walking distance at approximately 500 m, 12.5% (Evolution-K®) and 7.3% (Adaptiva®) at approximately 300 m, and finally 4.2% (Evolution-K®) and 2.4% (Adaptiva®) at a walking distance of only one room. No patient in either collective was unable to walk.
Analysis of the osteodensitometric follow-up measurements of the periprosthetic BMD of the CMP-EK showed a continuous downward trend with regard to the 10-day postoperative measurements, especially in the proximal ROI 1, 6 and 7, with a decrease of up to 25.8% (ROI 1) and 40.3% (ROI 7). The measurements conducted in the A-C showed a decrease in BMD only in ROI 6 and in ROI 7, namely 6.8% and 29.8%, respectively. The other ROI revealed an increase of up to 14.3% in BMD (ROI 3) (Table 3).
The difference in the 10-day postoperative measurements calculated for ROI 1-3 and 5 for both prosthesis types in the 16- or 13-year postoperative measurements were significant (ROI 1: p=0.002; ROI 2 and 3: p=0.009; ROI 5: p=0.006). The remaining ROI did not demonstrate a significant difference (ROI 4: p=0.155; ROI 6: p=0.693; ROI 7: p=0.153) (Table 4).
The osteodensitometric results for lumbar vertebrae 2-4, as compared to the 10- day postoperative measurements, did not reveal a significant difference (p=0.870), namely 0.12 (-0.2-0.41; 0.16) g/cm2 for the CMP-EK and 0.1 (-1.37-0.9; 0.39) g/cm2 for the CMP-A.
Osteoporosis, diagnosed with the Z Score, was found in 8.3% of patients in the EK-C and 17.1% in the A-C (standard deviation >-1). The difference between the two collectives was not significant (p=0.59).
When comparing the results of male and female patients (both n=12) in the EK-C, no significant differences in BMD within the various ROI were detected. In the A-C, however, the 21 male and 20 female patients revealed significant differences in the various periprosthetic BMD (p<0.05) (Table 3). Comparison of periprosthetic BMD of non-osteoporotic (n=34) and osteoporotic patients (n=7) in A-C showed no significant differences in ROI 1 or 3-7 (p>0.05). Only ROI 2 showed a significant difference (p=0.023).
Discussion and Conclusions
Lower revision rates of uncemented standard prostheses15 and longer survival rates were reported, especially in patients under the age of 55,16 as compared to cemented prostheses. There are only few studies comparing them to CMP.
The most important quality criterion for evaluation of CMP is clinical outcome. EKC achieved after 16 years of follow-up a mediocre result while after 13 years A-C showed a good HHS result. Both collectives demonstrate a worsening of the clinical result over the study period. A noticeable finding was the number of patients with stress-related or permanent pain at the time of follow-up. This underlines the significant differences in the HHS. For CMP generally, HHS of 80-97 points can be found in the literature and reveal similar results (Table 2).17-23 Here, only the “Symbios-CMP” by Flecher et al. scored an excellent 97 points. However, the slightly shorter follow-up period should be taken into account, despite this being the largest collective. Akbar et al. showed lower clinical results with 87 points, but have the longest follow-up period, namely 14 years. CMP reaped better results in the above-mentioned studies compared to cement-free standard prostheses. However, the CMP-EKwith only 79 points had one of the lowest results, while the CMP-A compared well with 88 points.
Table 2.
Results of CMP.
| Prosthesis | Author | Year | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evolution-K® | 2015 | 16 (15-18) | 54.5 (34-64) | 50 | 5 | 79 | 4 | 4 | 92 | |
| Adaptiva® | 2015 | 13 (13-15) | 57 (42-66) | 59 | 5 | 88 | 1 | 1 | 99 | |
| CAD-CAM® | Muirhead-Allwood et al. | 2010 | 13 (10-17) | 46 (25-62) | 112 | 6 | 90 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
| Sewell et al. | 2011 | 10 (4-18) | 38 (18-61) | 43 | 3 | 80 | 2 | 1 | 93 | |
| Benum et Aamodt | 2010 | 10 | 48 (20-65) | 83 | 0 | - | 2 | 0 | 98 | |
| Al-Khateeb et al. | 2014 | 10 (5-15) | 33 (23-55) | 17 | 0 | 80 | 0 | 0 | 100 | |
| Symbios® | Flecher et al. | 2010 | 10 (5-16) | 40 (18-50) | 232 | 0 | 97 | 6 | 2 | 97 |
| Pakos et al. | 2015 | 10 (8-12) | 48 (41-55) | 86 | 0 | - | 4 | 2 | 98 | |
| CT3D-A® | Akbar et al. | 2009 | 14 (10-16) | 35 (22-40) | 72 | 0 | 87 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
A: Mean follow-up period [years]. B: Median age of the collective [years]. C: Collective size [n]. D: Lost to follow up [n]. E: HHS-result [points]. F: Number of revisions [n]. G: Number of revisions due to aseptic loosening [n]. H: Survival rates [%].
With regard to revisions due to aseptic loosening, CMP-A offers very good results with 99% not requiring such re-do operations. Therefore, it is comparable to the other listed CMP. CMP-EK, similar to the CAD-CAM prosthesis by Sewell et al., offers only a survival rate of 92% and 93%. These two prostheses thus have the poorest survival rate of the listed prostheses (Table 2).17-23 Overall, CMP demonstrated excellent survival rates in comparable collective sizes and comparable average age at implantation. At 92%, however, CMP-EK yielded a slightly reduced survival rate in our study, while having the longest median follow-up period of 16 years. CMP-A fits in well with the results published for other CMP with a survival rate of 99% in a follow-up period of 13 years.
The osteodensitometric results of CMPEK reveal clear BMD reductions in the proximal ROI as compared to the 10-day postoperative measurement. The “fill and fit” concept is intended to reduce stress shielding, but these areas evidence remarkable stress shielding. The distal ROI showed declines of less than 4% in BMD. ROI 3 even showed unchanged BMD. This can be explained by the effect of stress shielding. This mechanism is thought to be responsible for pain in the thigh and aseptic loosening.24
When comparing changes in BMD after four or five years and ultimately after 16 years, it is noteworthy that the restructuring process of the BMD does not occur in an exponential fashion; it is much more likely to slow down. The follow-up measurements of the lumbar vertebrae 2-4, representing the systemic BMD, revealed in contrast a stable or slight increase in BMD and in the measurements of the opposite femur. Therefore, changes in the periprosthetic areas must be induced by the prosthesis. This increase, as well as the increase in systemic BMD in contrast to the age-related decrease in BMD, may have several causes, for instance improved postoperative mobility, pharmacological improvement of calcium metabolism due to osteoporosis prophylaxis, weight change in the collective or errors in pre- and postoperative measurements due to degeneration and osteophytes.
CMP-Aalso shows a remarkable decline in BMD, specifically in the proximal mid- ROI. Periprosthetic BMD, however, hardly deviated from the BMD of the previous measurements, indicating good biomechanical properties of this prosthesis. However, the depreciations in ROI 6 and 7 demonstrate that optimal force transmission and physiological biomechanical load are not yet fully established. The trend to increasing periprosthetic BMD described by Lebherz et al., especially in the distal shaft anchoring, was underlined by our measurements. Here a slight increase was seen during the 2-year follow-up measurements after an initial decline in the 6-month follow-up was measured. These observations were most striking in ROI 4 (1.7%) and ROI 5 (3.3%).9
Systemic BMD and BMD of the opposite femur did not differ significantly in the two collectives. Other factors leading to osteopenia or osteoporosis, which would therefore falsify the measurements, were ruled out with the T Score. However, periprosthetic BMD of the study prostheses in ROI 1-3 and ROI 5 differed significantly between the collectives (Table 4). This may be due to the bone transformations observed in CMP-EK, especially in the proximal ROI 1-2 caused by stress shielding, while this can not be detected in CMP-A. In ROI 5, a significant increase in BMD was observed with CMP-A. Consequently, the significant difference in ROI 3 and 5 between the two collectives resulted from more pronounced bone hypertrophy with CMP-A than with CMP-EK as a result of a wider area of contact during force transmission. Furthermore, CMP-A showed an increase in BMD also in the medial femur area, facilitating force transmission through this region. However, in CMP-EK a similar effect can be seen only in the lateral ROI 3, most probably caused by a leverage effect. This denotes a more unphysiological force transmission than with CMP-A.
Table 3.
CMP BMD-measurements and BMD-subgroup analysis man/woman.
| A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evolution-K® | |||||||||||
| ROI 1 | O.97 | - | 0.76 | -21.9 | 0.75 | -22.9 | 0.72 | -25.8 | -0.24 | -0.45 | p=0.101 |
| ROI 2 | 1.8 | - | 1.53 | -14.9 | 1.51 | -15.9 | 1.65 | -8.3 | -0.33 | -0.39 | p=0.932 |
| ROI 3 | 1.96 | - | 1.86 | -6.1 | 1.86 | -6 | 1.96 | 0 | -0.13 | -0.35 | p=0.242 |
| ROI 4 | 1.86 | - | 1.72 | -10.9 | 1.74 | -9.8 | 1.8 | -3.2 | -0.20 | -0.37 | p=0.443 |
| ROI 5 | 2.04 | - | 1.94 | -5.4 | 1.98 | -3.6 | 1.99 | -2.5 | -0.14 | -0.45 | p=0.332 |
| ROI 6 | 1.73 | - | 1.57 | -7.4 | 1.56 | -7.9 | 1.5 | -10.4 | -0.36 | -0.45 | p=0.887 |
| ROI 7 | 1.49 | - | 1.04 | -27.5 | 1.0 | -30.3 | 0.91 | -40.3 | -0.69 | -0.71 | p=0.755 |
| Adaptiva® | |||||||||||
| ROI 1 | 0.88 | - | 0.79 | -10.8 | - | - | 0.95 | 8 | 0.29 | -0.15 | p=0.002 |
| ROI 2 | 1.69 | - | 1.57 | -6.8 | - | - | 1.89 | 11.8 | 0.50 | -0.08 | p=0.003 |
| ROI 3 | 1.96 | - | 1.87 | -4.9 | - | - | 2.24 | 14.3 | 0.50 | 0.09 | p=0.003 |
| ROI 4 | 1.92 | - | 1.86 | -5.1 | - | - | 1.98 | 3.1 | 0.21 | -0.05 | p=0.042 |
| ROI 5 | 1.93 | - | 1.87 | -3.1 | - | - | 2.18 | 13 | 0.41 | 0.12 | p=0.020 |
| ROI 6 | 1.61 | - | 1.48 | -8.0 | - | - | 1.50 | -6.8 | 0.09 | -0.36 | p=0.003 |
| ROI 7 | 1.51 | - | 1.15 | -23.7 | - | - | 1.06 | -29.8 | -0.32 | -0.61 | p=0.010 |
A: BMD 10 d post-OP [g/cm2]. B: Difference based on the measurement 10 d post-OP [%]. C: BMD 4 y (Evolution-K®) / 2 y (Adaptiva®) post-OP [g/cm2]. D: Difference based on the measurement 10 d post-OP [%]. E: BMD 5 y post-OP [g/cm2]. F: Dif-ference based on the measurement 10 d post-OP [%]. G: BMD 16 y (Evolution-K®) /13 y (Adaptiva®) post-OP [g/cm2]. H: Dif-ference based on the measurement 10 d post-OP [%]. I: Mean subgroup “man” [g/cm2]. J: Mean subgroup „woman“ [g/cm2]. K: Mann-Whitney-U-test (t-Test).
Table 4.
Significant levels of measurement differences of ROI.
| A | B | C | D | E | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROI 1 | -0.2 | -26 | 0.07 | 8 | p=0.002 |
| ROI 2 | -0.13 | -8.3 | 0.22 | 11.8 | p=0.009 |
| ROI 3 | 0.05 | 0 | 0.3 | 14.3 | p=0.009 |
| ROI 4 | -0.03 | -3.2 | 0.08 | 3.1 | p=0.155 |
| ROI 5 | -0.02 | -2.5 | 0.27 | 13 | p=0.006 |
| ROI 6 | -0.18 | -10.4 | -0.13 | -6.8 | p=0.693 |
| ROI 7 | -0.62 | -40.3 | -0.46 | -29.8 | p=0.153 |
A: Difference BMD [g/cm2] CMP-EK 16 years to 10 days postoperatively. B: Difference BMD [%] CMP-EK 16 years to 10 days postoperatively. C: Difference BMD [g/cm2] CMP-A 13 years to 10 days postoperatively. D: Difference BMD [%] CMP-A 13 years to 10 days postoperatively. E: Significance of differences of BMD.
Comparison with the listed studies regarding changes in BMD in CMP is hardly feasible, since they all acquired their data from radiological interpretations of anteriorposterior hip x rays with evaluation of heterotopic ossification based on the Brooker classification, lucid lines >2 mm as signs of loosening, osteolyses, stress shielding and stability criteria defined by Engh et al.25
Nevertheless, radiological interpretations are less precise and investigator-dependent than osteodensitometric examinations. Measuring changes in BMD and comparing them over such a long follow-up period is therefore unique to date.
A limitation of this study is the number of patients lost to follow-up. For clinical osteodensitometric study examination 24 EK-C patients and 41 A-C patients were evaluated (Table 1). Nevertheless, the long follow-up periods of 16 and 13 years must be taken into account.
In summary, CMP-A with its good HHS result after 13 years is superior to the CMPEK with its average result after 16 years. With regard to the osteodensitometric results, both prostheses show signs of stress shielding in the proximal shaft areas despite their custom-made fitting. The twodimensional, quadrangularly shaped Adaptiva®, however, showed far less stress shielding than did the three-dimensional and round-oval-shaped Evolution-K®. Clinical and osteodensitometric results of the CMPA demonstrate the superiority of the medio-lateral form-fit concept with its pressfit procedure, augmented by three vertical ribs in the proximal and ventral area providing maximum rotary stability and smooth force transmission.
Long-term CMP results with a median follow-up period of 15 years are rarely published, but continue to gain in relevance in light of the increasing pressure on the health system to justify their use despite higher costs.
Funding Statement
Funding: None.
References
- 1.Hallan G, Lie SA, Furnes O, et al. Medium- and long-term performance of 11,516 uncemented primary femoral stems from the Norwegian arthroplasty register. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2007;89:1574-80. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Aro HT, Alm JJ, Moritz N, et al. 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;83:107-14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Ellenrieder M, Steinhauser E, Bader R, et al. Influence of cementless hip stems on femoral cortical strain pattern depending on their extent of porous coating. Biomed Tech (Berl) 2012;57:121-129. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Diehl P, Haenle M, Bergschmidt P, et al. [Cementless total hip arthroplasty: a review]. Biomed Tech (Berl) 2010;55:251-64. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Moyer JA, Metz CM, Callaghan JJ, et al. Durability of second-generation extensively porous-coated stems in patients age 50 and younger. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010;468:448-53. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Ramaniraka NA, Rakotomanana LR, Rubin PJ, et al. [Noncemented total hip arthroplasty: influence of extramedullary parameters on initial implant stability and on bone-implant interface stresses]. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 2000;86:590-7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Khanuja HS, Vakil JJ, Goddard MS, et al. Cementless femoral fixation in total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011;93:500-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Sayyidmousavi A, Bougherara H. Investigation of stress shielding around the Stryker Omnifit and Exeter periprosthetic hip implants using an irreversible thermodynamic-based model. J Biomed Mat Res B 2012;100: 1416-24. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Lebherz C. Entwicklung der Knochendichte nach Implantation der Individualprothese Typ Adaptiva. 2001: 1-176. Inaugural-Dissertation. [Google Scholar]
- 10.Leichtle UG, Leichtle CI, Martini F. Microsection analysis of cortical formfit of a custom femoral component in total hip arthroplasty: an in vitro study. Orthop Rev (Pavia) 2012;4:e31. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Harris WH. Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1969;51:737-55. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Gudmundsdottir SL, Indridason OS, Franzson L, et al. Age-related decline in bone mass measured by dual-energy Xray absorptiometry and quantitative ultrasound in a population-based sample of both sexes: identification of useful ultrasound thresholds for osteoporosis screening. J Clin Densit 2005;8:80-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Gruen TA, McNeice GM and Amstutz HC. “Modes of failure” of cemented stem-type femoral components: a radiographic analysis of loosening. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1979:17-27. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Agha R, Abdall-Razak A, Crossley E, et al. STROCSS 2019 Guideline: Strengthening the reporting of cohort studies in surgery. Int J Surg 2019;72:156-65. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Malchau H, Herberts P, Eisler T, et al. The Swedish Total Hip Replacement Register. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2002;84A:2-20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Aldinger PR, Jung AW, Pritsch M, et al. Uncemented grit-blasted straight tapered titanium stems in patients younger than fifty-five years of age. Fifteen to twenty-year results. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009;91:1432-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Akbar M, Aldinger G, Krahmer K, et al. Custom stems for femoral deformity in patients less than 40 years of age: 70 hips followed for an average of 14 years. Acta Orthop 2009;80:420-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Al-Khateeb H, Kwok IH, Hanna SA, et al. Custom cementless THA in patients with Legg-Calve-Perthes Disease. J Arthroplasty 2014;29:792-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Benum P, Aamodt A. Uncemented custom femoral components in hip arthroplasty. A prospective clinical study of 191 hips followed for at least 7 years. Acta Orthop 2010;81:427-35. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Flecher X, Pearce O, Parratte S, et al. Custom cementless stem improves hip function in young patients at 15-year followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010;468:747-55. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Muirhead-Allwood SK, Sandiford N, Skinner JA, et al. Uncemented custom computer-assisted design and manufacture of hydroxyapatite-coated femoral components: survival at 10 to 17 years. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2010;92:1079-84. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Pakos EE, Stafilas KS, Tsovilis AE, et al. Long Term Outcomes of Total Hip Arthroplasty With Custom Made Femoral Implants in Patients With Congenital Disease of Hip. J arthroplasty 2015;30:2242-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Sewell MD, Hanna SA, Muirhead-Allwood SK, et al. Custom cementless THA in patients with skeletal dysplasia results in lower apparent revision rates than other types of femoral fixation. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011;469:1406-12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Brown TE, Larson B, Shen F, et al. Thigh pain after cementless total hip arthroplasty: evaluation and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2002;10:385-92. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Engh CA, Massin P, Suthers KE. Roentgenographic assessment of the biologic fixation of porous-surfaced femoral components. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1990:107-28. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]