The Incidence of Dislocation (Utilizing a Neck Sparing Stem) in Community Based Practices with the Posterior Approach


  • Edward J. McPherson L.A. Orthopaedic Institute; JISRF, CDD,LLC
  • Bradley K. Vaughn Raleigh Orthopaedic Clinic, 1325 Timber Drive East Garner, NC 27529
  • Louis Keppler St. Vincent Medical Group; Clinical/Surgical Consultant JISRF; TSIâ„¢ Study Group; CDD, LLC Member
  • Declan Brazil CEO Signature Orthopaedics; Co-Director of Research JISRF;
  • Timothy McTighe JISRF



hip, arthroplasty, posterior approach, dislocation, neck sparing, risk factors



To evaluate early and mid-term risk factors and dislocation rates in the posterior surgical approach in three separate community private practices using a short curved neck-sparing total hip stem design.

Material and Methods.

The three senior authors performed 338 short curved neck-sparing stem designs since April 2010 to June 2014.  Various cementless acetabular components were used for all three surgical centers based on preoperative and intraoperative risk factors. All cases were reviewed retrospectively for incidence of dislocation after surgery.

Version and inclination of the acetabular component and version of the femoral component were assed intra-operatively prior to final implantation. Various risk factors were reviewed including surgical approach, cup position, combined cup and stem positioning, and femoral head size.

There have been significant papers in the past ten years that have recommended large head diameters to reduce the chances of head/neck mechanical impingement. Since the neck-sparing designs have a potentially increased risk of mechanical impingement head diameters were restricted to 32 mm or larger. In the smaller patient profile if a 32 mm head size could not be reached a dual-mobility style implant was chosen or stem choice was changed to a conventional style design.


Historically the posterior approach has had higher reports of dislocations as compared to direct anterior, anterolateral or straight lateral approach in conventional cemented and cementless implant designs. Older neck-sparing designs of conventional stem length by Freeman, Townley and Whiteside have not reported any increased dislocation problems but these stems have been associated with modified acetabular component designs, including the short curved neck sparing design of Pipino back in the 1980s.

Incidence of dislocation in our series utilizing a short curved neck-sparing stem with more traditional hemispherical cementless acetabular components was 3 or 0.88%.


Neck sparing stem designs do save significantly more bone and require less soft tissue dissection as compared to conventional cementless stem designs. Mechanical risk factors are increased with the use of short curved neck-sparing stem designs. Careful pre-operative and intra-operative evaluation does reduce the risk factors resulting in low and in some cases lower than previous published rates with conventional style stems.

Short curved neck sparing stems do provide safe and reliable reproduction of the joint mechanics in routine primary total hip arthroplasty in both short and mid term results.

Key Words: hip, arthroplasty, posterior approach, dislocation, neck sparing, and risk factors

Author Biographies

Edward J. McPherson, L.A. Orthopaedic Institute; JISRF, CDD,LLC

M.D.; Director of Orthopaedic Surgery L.A. Orthopaedic Institute; Board Member JISRF; Editorial Board Reconstructive Review; TSIâ„¢ Study Group Member JISRF;

Bradley K. Vaughn, Raleigh Orthopaedic Clinic, 1325 Timber Drive East Garner, NC 27529

MD; Adult Joint Replacement Surgeon

Louis Keppler, St. Vincent Medical Group; Clinical/Surgical Consultant JISRF; TSIâ„¢ Study Group; CDD, LLC Member

MD; Clinical/Surgical Advisor JISRF; Member TSIâ„¢ Study Group

Declan Brazil, CEO Signature Orthopaedics; Co-Director of Research JISRF;

PhD; CEO Signature Orthopaedics; Co-Director of Research JISRF; TSIâ„¢ Study Group Member

Timothy McTighe, JISRF

Dr. H.S. (hc); Executive Director JISRF; Editor-in-Chief Reconstructive Review; Founder CDD,LLC


McTighe T, Brazil D, Keggi J, Keppler L, et al. “Short-Stem Designs for Total Hip Arthroplasty: Neck Stabilized Femoral Components”. Callaghan J, Beaule P, Clohisy J, Della Valle C, Rosenberg A, and Rubash H. The Adult Hip, 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer Health, in press.

Engh CA Jr, Culpepper WJ, Engh CA. Long-term results of use of the anatomic medullary locking prosthesis in total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997;79:177–184.

Moussa H, Pierre B, Jacques D, et al. Alumina-on-alumina total hip arthroplasty: A minimum 18.5 year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84(1):69–77.

Neumann L, Freund KG, Sørenson K H. Long-term results of Charnley total hip replacement. Review of 92 patients at 15 to 20 years. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1994;76(2):245–251.

Teloken MA, Bissett G, Hozack WJ, et al. Ten to fifteen-year follow-up after total hip arthroplasty with a tapered cobalt-chromium femoral component (tri-lock) inserted without cement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84-A(12):2140–2144.

Polkowski et alTotal Hip Arthroplasty in the very Young Patient.” Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. (2012)., 20, 487-497.

Girard J, Glorion C, Bonnomet F, et al. Risk factors for revision of hip arthroplasties in patients younger than 30 years. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(4):1141–1147.

Haveri S, Uppin RB. Results of Uncemented Total Replacement Done in Very Young Patients. Int Surg J. 2014 Aug; 1 (2):80-83 pISSN 2349-3305 | eISSN 2349-2902

Dorr LD, Luckett M, Conaty JP. Total hip arthroplasties in patients younger than 45 years. A nine- to ten-year follow-up study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990;(260):215–219.

McTighe T, Brazil D, et al. The Science Behind a Short (Neck Preserving) Curved Stem Total Hip Replacement. Poster ID: EFFORT 14-4564, June 2014 London, UK.

Keppler L, McTighe T, Brazil D, The Role of Stem Modularity for THA in a Community Based Practice. RR, Vol2, No2 (August 2012) P16-26, DOI:

McTighe T, Mayor M, Stulberg B, Donaldson T, Keggi J, Keppler L, Clarke I, McPherson E, Interview on Metal on Metal Bearings. RR, Vol 2, No 2 (August 2012) DOI:

Dudda M, Gueleryuez A, et al. Risk Factors for Early Dislocation after Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Match Case-Control Study. J. Orthop Surg 2010;18(2):179-83

Chandler RW, Dorr LD, Perry J. The functional cost of dislocation following total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1982;168:168–172.

Pipino F, Molfetta L, Grandizio M. Preservation of the Femoral Neck in Hip Arthroplasty: Results of a 13 to 17 year Follow-up. J Orthopaed Tramatol (2000) 1:31-39

McTighe T, Woodgate I, Turnbull A, et al. A new Approach to Neck Sparing THA Stem. AAOS Poster Exhibit 32, March 2008.

Lindgren JU, Rysavy J. Restoration of femoral offset during hip replacement. A radiographic cadaver study. Acta Orthop Scand.1992;63(4):407-410

Davey JD, O'Connor DO, Burke DW, Harris WH. Femoral component offset. Its effect on strain in bone-cement. J Arthroplasty.1993;8(1):23-26

Woolson ST, Rahimtoola ZO. Risk factors for dislocation during the first 3 months after primary total hip replacement. J Arthroplasty. 1999;14(6):662-668

Schutte HD, Conrad J, Barfield W, Conway W, McTighe T. Femoral Offset How to Measure Preoperatively. Oral paper, Research on Modularity Hip Scientific Meeting Oct. 2009

Schutte HD, Conrad J, Barfield W, Conway W, McTighe T. Predicting Errors in Offset Templating for THA. Poster 59 ICJR CME Course April 2012 Coronado, CA.

Freeman M. Why Resect The Neck? JBJS Vol. 68 B. No. 3, May 1986

McTighe T, Optimizing Modular Tapers for THA. Oral paper ICJR Pan Pacific July 2014 /

Brazil D, McTighe T, Taper Issues in THA. ICJR oral paper Sydney Australia, February 2014 /




How to Cite

McPherson, E. J., Vaughn, B. K., Keppler, L., Brazil, D., & McTighe, T. (2015). The Incidence of Dislocation (Utilizing a Neck Sparing Stem) in Community Based Practices with the Posterior Approach. Reconstructive Review, 5(2).



Original Article