A Single Femoral Component for All Total Hip Replacements Performed by a Trust? Does This Affect Early Clinical and Radiological Outcomes?

Document Type : RESEARCH PAPER


Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Warrington Hospital, Lovely Lane, Warrington, Cheshire, UK


Background: Hospitals may be under pressure to implement cost saving strategies regarding prosthesis choice. This
may involve the use of components which are not the first preference of individual surgeons, or those they have little
experience with. We aim to examine the effect of standardizing the type of femoral stem used in a single trust, and
determine whether this is safe practice, particularly in those who have never used this particular stem before.
Methods: We report results at 2 years of 151 primary total hip arthroplasties performed using a single femoral stem.
Data was split into 2 groups: those in which the operating surgeon was previously using this femoral stem, and those
who were not. Radiographic outcomes measured were leg length discrepancy, cement mantle grade, and femoral stem
alignment. We also report on clinical outcomes, complications, and construct survivability.
Results: No significant differences in clinical outcomes were observed. Cement quality was generally worse in those
with no prior use of this stem. Leg length inequality was greater in those previously using the stem (+1.57mm vs
3.83mm), however this did not correlate to clinical outcomes. Alignment was similar between the groups (P=0.464).
Conclusion: Our findings suggest that although clinical outcomes are similar at 2 years, radiological differences can
be observed even at this early stage in follow up. Choice of components for arthroplasty should remain surgeon led until
long term follow up studies can prove otherwise.


Main Subjects

1. Kandala NB, Connock M, Pulikottil-Jacob R, Sutcliffe
P, Crowther MJ, Grove A, et al. Setting benchmark
revision rates for total hip replacement: analysis of
registry evidence. BMJ. 2015; 350:h756-81.
2. Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections
of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in
the United States from 2005-2030. J Bone J Surg Am.
2007; 89(4):780-5.
3. Learmonth ID, Young C, Rorabeck C. The operation
of the century: total hip replacement. Lancet 2007;
4. Barber TC, Healy WL. The hospital cost of total hip
arthroplasty. A comparison between 1981 and 1990. J
Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993; 75(3):321-5.
5. Healy WL, Iorio R, Richards JA, Lucchesi C.
Opportunities for control of hospital costs for total
joint arthroplasty after initial cost containment. J
Arthroplasty. 1998; 13(5):504-7.
6. Levine DB, Cole BJ, Rodeo SA. Cost awareness and
cost containment at the Hospital for Special Surgery.
Strategies and total hip replacement cost centers. Clin
Orthop Relat Res. 1995; 311:117-24.
7. Zuckerman JD, Kummer FJ, Frankel VH. The
effectiveness of a hospital-based strategy to reduce
the cost of total joint implants. J Bone Joint Surg Am.
1994; 76(6):807-11.
8. Healy WL: The cost of primary and revision total hip
arthroplasty: a dilemma for surgeons and hospitals.
In: Galante JO, Rosenberg AG, Callaghan JJ, editors.
Total hip revision surgery. New York: Raven Press;
9. Duwelius PJ, Parvizi J, Matsen Ko L. New technology:
safety, efficacy, and learning curves. Clin Orthop Relat
Res. 2014; 472(4):1080-5.
10. Salai M, Mintz Y, Giveon U, Chechik A, Horoszowski
H. The “learning curve” of total hip arthroplasty. Acta
Orthop Trauma Surg. 1997; 116(6-7):420-2.
11. Flamme CH, Stukenborg-Colsman C, Wirth CJ.
Evaluation of the learning curves associated
with uncemented primary total hip arthroplasty
depending on the experience of. the surgeon Hip Int.
2006; 16(3):191-7.
12. Peltola M, Malmivaara A, Paavola M. Introducing
a knee endoprosthesis model increases risk of
early revision surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res.2012;
13. Peltola M, Malmivaara A, Paavola M. Hip prosthesis
introduction and early revision risk. A nationwide
population-base study covering 39,125 operations.
Acta Orthop. 2013; 84(1):25-31.
14. Ravi B, Jenkinson R, Austin PC, Croxford R,
Wasserstein D, Escott B, et al. Relationship between
surgeon volume and risk of complications after total
hip arthroplasty: propensity score matched cohort
study. BMJ 2014; 348:g3284.
15. Johnson AJ, Costa CR, Naziri Q, Mont MA. Is there
a new learning curve with transition to a new
resurfacing system? Bull NYU Hosp JT Dis. 2011;
16. Ramdas K, Saleh K, Stern S, Liu H. New joints more
hip? Learning in the use of new components.
London: Working Paper, London Business School;
17. McBride TJ, Prakash D. How to read a postoperative
total hip replacement radiograph. Postgrad Med J.
2011; 87(1024):101-9.
18. Manaster BJ. From the RSNA refresher courses.
Total hip arthroplasty: radiographic evaluation.
Radiographics. 1996; 16(3): 645-60.
19. Pluot E, Davis ET, Revell M, Davis AM, James SL.
Hip arthroplasty. Part 2: normal and abnormal
radiographic findings. Clin Radiol. 2009; 64(10):
20. Roberts CC, Chew FS. Radiographic imaging of hip
replacement hardware. Sem Roentgenol. 2005; 40(3):
21. Sarangi PP, Bannister GC. Leg length discrepancy after
total hip replacement. Hip Int. 1997; 7:121-4.
22. Barrack RL, Mulroy RD Jr, Harris WH. Improved
cementing techniques and femoral component
loosening in young patients with hip arthroplasty.
A 12 year radiographic review. J Bone Joint Surg Br.
1992; 74(3):385-9.
23. de Beer J, McKenzie S, Hubmann M, Petruccelli D,
Winemaker M. Influence of cementless femoral
stems inserted in varus on functional outcome in
primary total hip arthroplasty. Can J Surg. 2006;
24. Khalily C, Lester DK. Results of a tapered cementless
femoral stem implanted in varus. J Arthroplasty. 2002;
25. Spitzer AI, Waltuch I, Goodmanson P, Habelow
B, Suthers K. Triple tapered polished collarless
cemented stem: early experience with an ehhanced
extramedullary design. Orthop Proc. 2008; 90(Suppl
26. Berstock JR, Whitehouse MR, Piper DC, Eastaugh-
Waring SJ, Bloom AW. A 5-8 year retrospective follow
up of the C-stem AMT femoral component. Patient
reported outcomes and survivorship analysis. J
Arthroplasty. 2014; 29(9):1753-7.
27. Pellicci PM, Salvati EA, Robinson HJ. Mechanical
failures in total hip replacement requiring reoperation.
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1979; 61(1):28-36.
28. Kobayashi S, Eftekhar NS, Terayama K. Predisposing
factors in fixation failure of femoral prostheses
following primary Charnley low friction arthroplasty:
a 10-20 year follow up study. Clin Orthop Relat Res.
1994; 306:72-83.
29. Konyves A, Bannister GC. The importance of leg length 
discrepancy after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint
Surg Br. 2005; 87(2):155-7.
30. Edeen J, Sharkey PF, Alexander AH. Clinical 
significance of leg-length inequality after total hip
arthroplasty. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 1995;