No Rationale for Gender Specific Femoral Stems for Total Hip Arthroplasty

Authors

  • Raj Sinha, MD, PhD
  • Vangalea Weems, BS, PA-C
  • Margaret Cutler, RN

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15438/rr.4.3.78

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the applicability of two femoral stem systems in male and female populations via preoperative templating. The radiographs of 47 consecutive patients (94 hips) were templated using one of two stem systems by first fixing the acetabular center of rotation. Based upon templating, the result categories were: no obvious advantage of either system, System 1 preferred, System 2 preferred, neither system adequate. Preference was determined based upon having a best-fit stem choice and at least one additional length or offset option, and avoiding the extremes of the system as the best-fit choice. Significantly, there were gender differences in applicability of femoral stems. Specifically, more neck length and offset options seem to be required for females. The potential limitations of the implant systems in applicability could be overcome by adjusting the level of neck resection. Therefore, it would appear that there is a limited role for gender specific implants for total hip arthroplasty.

Keywords: hip  arthroplasty  modular  stem gender

References

Gender differences in the anatomy of the distal femur. Gillespie RJ, Levine A, Fitzgerald SJ, Kolaczko J, DeMaio M, Marcus RE, Cooperman DR. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2011 Mar: 93 (3):357-63.

Gender differences in 3D Morphology and bony impingement of human hips. Nakahara I, Takao M, Sakai T, Nishii T, Yoshikawa H, Sugano N. J Orthop Res. 2011 Mar;29(3):333-9.

Evaluation of proximal femoral geometry using digital photographs. Unnanuntana A, Toogood P, Hart D, Cooperman D, Grant RE. J Orthop Res. 2010 Nov;28(11):1399-404

The differences of femoral neck geometric parameters: effects of age, gender and race. Zhang F, Tan LJ, Lei SF, Deng HW. Osteoporos Int. 2010 Jul;21(7):1205-14.

CT evaluation of native acetabular orientation and localization: sex-specific data comparison on 336 hip joints. Tohtz SW, Sassy D, Matziolis G, Preininger B, Perka C, Hasart O. Technol Health Care. 2010;18(2):129-36

Total hip arthroplasty modular neck failure. Skendzel JG, Blaha JD, Urquhart AG. J Arthroplasty. 2011 Feb;26(2):338

A case of disassociation of a modular femoral neck trunion after total hip arthroplasty. Sporer SM, DellaValle C, Jacobs J, Wimmer M. J Arthroplasty. 2006 Sep;21(6):918-21

Sex differences in hip morphology: is stem modularity effective for total hip replacement? Traina F, De Clerico M, Biondi F, Pilla F, Tassinari E, Toni A. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009 Nov;91 Suppl 6:121-8

Do we need gender-specific total joint arthroplasty? Johnson AJ, Costa CR, Mont MA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011 Jul;469(7):1852-8

No difference in gender-specific hip replacement outcomes. Kostamo T, Bourne RB, Whittaker JP, McCalden RW, MacDonald SJ. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009 Jan;467(1):135-40.

Evaluation and treatment of painful total hip arthroplasties with modular metal taper junctions. Meneghini RM, Hallab NJ, Jacobs JJ Orthopedics, 2012 May 35(5):386-91.

Downloads

Published

2014-10-01

How to Cite

Sinha, MD, PhD, R., Weems, BS, PA-C, V., & Cutler, RN, M. (2014). No Rationale for Gender Specific Femoral Stems for Total Hip Arthroplasty. Reconstructive Review, 4(3). https://doi.org/10.15438/rr.4.3.78

Issue

Section

Original Article