header advert
Results 1 - 2 of 2
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 97-B, Issue 5 | Pages 595 - 602
1 May 2015
McCalden RW Korczak A Somerville L Yuan X Naudie DD

This was a randomised controlled trial studying the safety of a new short metaphyseal fixation (SMF) stem. We hypothesised that it would have similar early clinical results and micromovement to those of a standard-length tapered Synergy metaphyseal fixation stem. Using radiostereometric analysis (RSA) we compared the two stems in 43 patients. A short metaphyseal fixation stem was used in 22 patients and a Synergy stem in 21 patients. No difference was found in the clinical outcomes pre- or post-operatively between groups. RSA showed no significant differences two years post-operatively in mean micromovement between the two stems (except for varus/valgus tilt at p = 0.05) (subsidence 0.94 mm (sd 1.71) vs 0.32 mm (sd 0.45), p = 0.66; rotation 0.96° (sd 1.49) vs 1.41° (sd 2.95), p = 0.88; and total migration 1.09 mm (sd 1.74) vs 0.73 mm (sd 0.72), p = 0.51). A few stems (four SMF and three Synergy) had initial migration > 1.0 mm but stabilised by three to six months, with the exception of one SMF stem which required revision three years post-operatively. For most stems, total micromovement was very low at two years (subsidence < 0.5 mm, rotation < 1.0°, total migration < 0.5 mm), which was consistent with osseous ingrowth. The small sample makes it difficult to confirm the universal applicability of or elucidate the potential contraindications to the use of this particular new design of stem.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B:595–602.


The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 92-B, Issue 7 | Pages 935 - 940
1 Jul 2010
McCalden RW Charron KD Yuan X Bourne RB Naudie DD MacDonald SJ

This was a safety study where the hypothesis was that the newer-design CPCS femoral stem would demonstrate similar early clinical results and micromovement to the well-established Exeter stem. Both are collarless, tapered, polished cemented stems, the only difference being a slight lateral to medial taper with the CPCS stem. A total of 34 patients were enrolled in a single-blinded randomised controlled trial in which 17 patients received a dedicated radiostereometric CPCS stem and 17 a radiostereometric Exeter stem. No difference was found in any of the outcome measures pre-operatively or post-operatively between groups. At two years, the mean subsidence for the CPCS stem was nearly half that seen for the Exeter stem (0.77 mm (−0.943 to 1.77) and 1.25 mm (0.719 to 1.625), respectively; p = 0.032). In contrast, the mean internal rotation of the CPCS stem was approximately twice that of the Exeter (1.61° (−1.07° to 4.33°) and 0.59° (0.97° to 1.64°), respectively; p = 0.048). Other migration patterns were not significantly different between the stems. The subtle differences in designs may explain the different patterns of migration.

Comparable migration with the Exeter stem suggests that the CPCS design will perform well in the long term.