Clinically relevant differences in stress shielding between two short-stemmed femoral prostheses.

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS
Felix Werneburg, Annabell Herntrich, Julia Dietz, David Wohlrab, Natalia Gutteck, Delank Karl-Stefan, Alexander Zeh
{"title":"Clinically relevant differences in stress shielding between two short-stemmed femoral prostheses.","authors":"Felix Werneburg, Annabell Herntrich, Julia Dietz, David Wohlrab, Natalia Gutteck, Delank Karl-Stefan, Alexander Zeh","doi":"10.1007/s00402-025-05975-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Short-stemmed endoprostheses were developed to implement proximal load transmission and thus avoid stress-shielding in the proximal femur. Various prosthesis systems have been developed, which are discussed in the literature regarding stress shielding, clinical outcome, and long-term implant stability.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this prospective randomized study, 52 patients (27 male, 25 female; average age 60.8 years) with conservatively unsuccessfully treated coxarthrosis were implanted with either a Nanos™ or Optimys™ short-stem prosthesis. Assessment included Gruen-zone based DEXA examinations immediately postoperatively and at one year to evaluate bone mineral density (BMD) and stress shielding, along with clinical outcomes using the Harris Hip Score (HHS). Radiographic measurements included offset (OFF), caput-collum-diaphyseal angle (CCD), leg length (LL), stem migration and inclination, and the occurrence of radiolucent lines (RL), assessed preoperatively, postoperatively, and at 12 months.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>DEXA showed differing stress-shielding profiles between stem types, favoring Optimys™ for BMD preservation. The Nanos™ group exhibited significantly greater BMD reduction in Gruen zones 1 (- 10.1%; p = 0.001), 4 (- 3.2%; p = 0.02), and 7 (- 21.3%; p = 0.001), whereas Optimys™ showed a significant decrease only in zone 7 (- 16.2%; p = 0.001). Although OFF, CCD, and LL changed significantly within groups postoperatively (p < 0.05), no statistically significant differences were found between the two stem designs in the final postoperative measurements (all p > 0.05). Stem migration remained clinically irrelevant in both groups. A statistically significant intra-group change was observed only in the Optimys™ group (Nanos™: 1.7 mm, p = 0.13; Optimys™: 2.5 mm, p = 0.01). Similarly, a small but statistically significant change in stem inclination was observed within both groups (Nanos™: 2.2°, p = 0.002; Optimys™: 1.5°, p = 0.01). Clinical improvement as measured by the Harris Hip Score (HHS) was excellent in both groups, with no significant differences between systems (Nanos™ pre/post: 52.0 / 98.0; Optimys™ pre/post: 51.6 / 97.0; both p < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>When compared, the Optimys stem demonstrated reduced stress shielding through improved proximal load transmission, resulting in significantly better preservation of bone mineral density in the proximal femur.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Ib.</p>","PeriodicalId":8326,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery","volume":"145 1","pages":"365"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12241186/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-025-05975-w","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Short-stemmed endoprostheses were developed to implement proximal load transmission and thus avoid stress-shielding in the proximal femur. Various prosthesis systems have been developed, which are discussed in the literature regarding stress shielding, clinical outcome, and long-term implant stability.

Methods: In this prospective randomized study, 52 patients (27 male, 25 female; average age 60.8 years) with conservatively unsuccessfully treated coxarthrosis were implanted with either a Nanos™ or Optimys™ short-stem prosthesis. Assessment included Gruen-zone based DEXA examinations immediately postoperatively and at one year to evaluate bone mineral density (BMD) and stress shielding, along with clinical outcomes using the Harris Hip Score (HHS). Radiographic measurements included offset (OFF), caput-collum-diaphyseal angle (CCD), leg length (LL), stem migration and inclination, and the occurrence of radiolucent lines (RL), assessed preoperatively, postoperatively, and at 12 months.

Results: DEXA showed differing stress-shielding profiles between stem types, favoring Optimys™ for BMD preservation. The Nanos™ group exhibited significantly greater BMD reduction in Gruen zones 1 (- 10.1%; p = 0.001), 4 (- 3.2%; p = 0.02), and 7 (- 21.3%; p = 0.001), whereas Optimys™ showed a significant decrease only in zone 7 (- 16.2%; p = 0.001). Although OFF, CCD, and LL changed significantly within groups postoperatively (p < 0.05), no statistically significant differences were found between the two stem designs in the final postoperative measurements (all p > 0.05). Stem migration remained clinically irrelevant in both groups. A statistically significant intra-group change was observed only in the Optimys™ group (Nanos™: 1.7 mm, p = 0.13; Optimys™: 2.5 mm, p = 0.01). Similarly, a small but statistically significant change in stem inclination was observed within both groups (Nanos™: 2.2°, p = 0.002; Optimys™: 1.5°, p = 0.01). Clinical improvement as measured by the Harris Hip Score (HHS) was excellent in both groups, with no significant differences between systems (Nanos™ pre/post: 52.0 / 98.0; Optimys™ pre/post: 51.6 / 97.0; both p < 0.001).

Conclusions: When compared, the Optimys stem demonstrated reduced stress shielding through improved proximal load transmission, resulting in significantly better preservation of bone mineral density in the proximal femur.

Level of evidence: Ib.

两种短柄股骨假体应力屏蔽的临床相关差异。
背景:短柄内假体的发展是为了实现近端负荷传递,从而避免股骨近端应力屏蔽。各种假体系统已经被开发出来,在文献中讨论了关于应力屏蔽、临床结果和长期种植体稳定性。方法:在这项前瞻性随机研究中,52例患者(男性27例,女性25例;平均年龄60.8岁),保守治疗不成功的髋关节植入Nanos™或Optimys™短柄假体。评估包括术后立即进行基于格林区的DEXA检查,并在一年后评估骨矿物质密度(BMD)和应力屏蔽,以及使用Harris髋关节评分(HHS)评估临床结果。影像学测量包括术前、术后和12个月评估的偏移量(OFF)、头-柱-骨干夹角(CCD)、腿长(LL)、茎迁移和倾斜以及放射透光线(RL)的出现。结果:DEXA在不同茎型间表现出不同的应力屏蔽特征,有利于Optimys™保存骨密度。Nanos™组在Gruen区1表现出更大的骨密度降低(- 10.1%;P = 0.001), 4 (- 3.2%;P = 0.02), 7 (- 21.3%;p = 0.001),而Optimys™仅在7区显著下降(- 16.2%;p = 0.001)。虽然术后各组间OFF、CCD、LL变化显著(p < 0.05)。在两组中,干细胞迁移与临床无关。只有Optimys™组(Nanos™:1.7 mm, p = 0.13;Optimys™:2.5 mm, p = 0.01)。同样,在两组中观察到茎倾角的微小但具有统计学意义的变化(Nanos™:2.2°,p = 0.002;Optimys™:1.5°,p = 0.01)。Harris髋关节评分(HHS)测量的临床改善在两组中都很好,系统之间没有显著差异(Nanos™前后:52.0 / 98.0;Optimys™pre/post: 51.6 / 97.0;结论:相比之下,Optimys支架通过改善近端负荷传递来减少应力屏蔽,从而显著更好地保存股骨近端骨矿物质密度。证据等级:Ib。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
13.00%
发文量
424
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: "Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery" is a rich source of instruction and information for physicians in clinical practice and research in the extensive field of orthopaedics and traumatology. The journal publishes papers that deal with diseases and injuries of the musculoskeletal system from all fields and aspects of medicine. The journal is particularly interested in papers that satisfy the information needs of orthopaedic clinicians and practitioners. The journal places special emphasis on clinical relevance. "Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery" is the official journal of the German Speaking Arthroscopy Association (AGA).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信