Abstract
To report clinical and radiographic outcomes of primary THA using three-dimensional (3D) image-based custom stems.
This systematic review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines and registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020216079). A search was conducted using MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane. Clinical studies were included if they reported clinical or radiographic outcomes of primary THA using 3D image-based custom stems. Studies were excluded if specific to patients with major hip anatomical deformities, or if not written in English.
Fourteen studies were eligible for inclusion (n = 1936 hips). There was considerable heterogeneity in terms of manufacturer, proximal geometry, coating and length of custom stems. Revision rates ranged from 0% to 1% in the short-term, 0% to 20% in the mid-term, and 4% to 10% in the long-term, while complication rates ranged from 3% in the short-term, 0% to 11% in the mid-term and 0% to 4% in the long-term. Post-operative Harris hip scores ranged from 95 to 96 in the short-term, 80 to 99 in the mid-term, and 87 to 94 in the long-term. Radiographic outcomes were reported in eleven studies, although none reported 3D implant sizing or positioning, nor compared planned and postoperative hip architecture.
Primary THA using 3D image-based custom stems in unselected patients provides limited but promising clinical and radiographic outcomes. Despite excellent survival, the evidence available in the literature remains insufficient to recommend their routine use. Future studies should specify proximal geometry, length, fixation, material and coating, as well as management of femoral offset and anteversion. The authors propose a classification system to help distinguish between custom stem designs based primarily on their proximal geometry and length.
Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2021;6:1166-1180. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.210053
Introduction
Primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a successful procedure and has demonstrated excellent mid- to long-term survival rates.1 Off-the-shelf femoral stems have been the default choice due to considerations of cost and versatility, as most designs are available in a range of sizes, neck lengths and offsets. Custom femoral stems were introduced for selected THA patients, notably those with major anatomical deformities,2,3 for which off-the-shelf implants would not be suitable. Despite their higher unit cost,4–6 custom stems are sometimes used for unselected THA patients, including standard/general cases that have no anatomical deformities. The rationale for custom stems is maximization of metaphyseal fit and fill,7 which could increase both rotational and axial stability, though their clinical benefits for unselected THA patients are yet to be confirmed.
Custom stems have been manufactured in various ways over the past three decades.8,9 Intraoperatively-made custom stems were machined based on silicone elastomer moulds of the femoral canal after reaming and broaching, which increased operation time by at least one hour.8,10 Preoperatively-made custom stems are based on conventional radiographs11,12 or more accurate 3D images, such as computed-tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).4,13 The stem size and shape, as well as the stem and coating materials vary across implant manufacturers; while some custom stems are short and metaphyseal-engaging, others are straight and long to surpass any existing femoral defects.14–17
A number of studies have reported the clinical and radiographic outcomes of THA using custom stems; however, there is not yet a systematic review which synthesizes their results in the literature. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review was to report the clinical and radiographic outcomes of primary THA in unselected patients using custom stems that have been designed from preoperative 3D imaging.
Materials and methods
This systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and registered with PROSPERO prior to commencement of the study (CRD42020216079).
Search strategy
An electronic literature search was conducted on 19 November 2020 using MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The search strategy was based on the following key terms: "total hip arthroplasty", "custom", and "stem" (see full search strategy in appendix). No date or publication restrictions were applied in the search. Subject matter experts (AN, IT, CC) were consulted to identify additional relevant studies that were not found in the electronic search, and review registries were consulted for ongoing reviews on the subject. Additionally, reference lists of selected articles, internet resources and grey literature were searched to identify further relevant studies that were not found during the electronic search.
Selection criteria
Duplicate articles were removed, and then titles and abstracts were screened independently by two authors (SRP, JHM) to determine their relevance in accordance with the following inclusion and exclusion criteria. The inclusion criteria were studies that reported clinical or radiographic outcomes of primary THA in unselected patients using custom stems designed from preoperative 3D imaging; whether comparative or non-comparative, retrospective or prospective, or even case reports. The exclusion criteria were: studies specifically on patients with major hip anatomical deformities (such as developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH)), studies specifically on revision THA, studies on animals, and studies on computer simulations. Narrative reviews, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, editorials, and expert opinions were also excluded, as well as papers published in languages other than English to avoid translation errors. While studies specifically on patients with major hip anatomical deformities (such as DDH) were excluded, they were included if only a portion of the patients had anatomical deformities.
Full text versions of the articles were retrieved if they were found to be relevant, or if the title and abstract did not provide sufficient information to establish final eligibility, and these were screened independently by two authors (SRP, JHM). Any disagreement between authors was solved by review and consensus.
Data extraction and quality assessment
The following characteristics were extracted from the included studies independently by two authors (SRP, JHM): title, lead author, year of publication, journal, time frame, population, indication for surgery, type of stem, surgical approach, intervention and comparator, number of patients included per intervention and comparator, age, body mass index (BMI), gender distribution, follow-up period, revision rate, reoperation rate, complication rate, survival rate, clinical outcomes and radiographic outcomes. Extracted data was compared between the two authors and if discrepancies were found, consensus was achieved through review and discussion. Where two or more studies were based on the same patient population, the longest follow-up and/or most complete data were presented, and shorter follow-up and/or incomplete data were disregarded.
The methodological quality of the studies was assessed according to the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Checklist.18 Any discrepancies in appraisal were resolved through discussion and consensus between the two authors.
Data analysis
When available in the original articles, outcomes were tabulated: continuous outcomes were reported as means, standard deviations and ranges, while categorical outcomes were reported as proportions. Harris hip score (HHS), revision rates and complication rates were the only outcomes consistently reported across studies. Meta-analyses could not be performed because there were only two comparative studies (custom versus off-the-shelf stems) reporting sufficient data. Instead, HHS, complication rates and revision rates were tabulated and presented graphically. Since outcome measures can depend on follow-up, the authors presented short- (≤ 2 years), medium- (> 2 to 10 years) and long- (> 10 years) term findings separately.
Results
Literature search
The electronic literature search identified 415 references, of which 117 were duplicates (Fig. 1). The title and abstract of the remaining 298 references were screened, and 257 were excluded because they did not meet the inclusion criteria. The remaining 41 articles underwent full-text screening, of which a further 30 articles were excluded because: 11 were on custom stems designed intraoperatively or preoperatively using two-dimensional (2D) imaging,8,10–12,19–25 six were not on custom stems,26–31 five were on custom stems but reported no clinical or radiographic outcomes,32–36, three were on custom stems designed specifically for patients with major hip anatomical deformities,2,3,37 three were in vitro or in silico studies on custom stems,38–40 one was on custom stems for revision THA,41 and one was on custom implants for the distal femur.42 A search in the grey literature identified one more eligible article,13 and searching the reference lists of the included articles identified five more eligible articles.6,9,15,43,44 Thus,a total of 17 articles were eligible for data extraction,4–6,9,13,15–17,43–51 all of which reported on clinical or radiographic outcomes of primary THA using custom stems designed from 3D imaging. Finally, the outcomes of three articles were disregarded16,17,45 because their patient populations were presented in other articles at longer follow-up and/or with more complete data, leaving 14 studies with unique patient populations.4,6,9,13,15,17,43,44,46–51
Flowchart of the study selection procedure.
Citation: EFORT Open Reviews 6, 12; 10.1302/2058-5241.6.210053
Characteristics of included studies
The 14 included studies were published between 1989 and 2020, reporting on a total of 1936 hips (15 to 259 per study) (Tables 1 and 2). The patient population was mostly unselected including standard/general cases that have no major anatomical deformities, although one study had a comparator group consisting of patients with severe DDH (Crowe III or IV).4
Characteristics of the studies included in the systematic review
| Author, year | Journal | Study design | Control/comparator | Type of stem | Approach | Time frame | Population |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Short-term follow-up (≤ 2 years) | |||||||
| Sandiford, 201047 | J Orthop Surg & Res | Case control | Custom stem vs | Custom uncemented (not specified) | Min. invasive P | 2000-2002 | Young active pts (< 65 years) |
| Hip resurfacing | Off-the-shelf resurfacing implant (not specified) | P | 2000-2002 | Young active pts (< 65 years) | |||
| Grant, 200550 | J Orthop Res | Case control | Custom uncemented vs | Custom uncemented (Scandinavian Customized Prostheses) | Modified Hardinge | Not specified | General |
| off-the-shelf cemented | Off-the-shelf modular cemented (DePuy) | Modified Hardinge | Not specified | General | |||
| Bargar, 19899 | CORR | Case control | Custom primary vs | Custom uncemented (not specified) | Not specified | Not specified | General |
| custom revision vs | Custom uncemented (not specified) | Not specified | Not specified | General | |||
| off-the-shelf primary & revisiona | Off-the-shelf uncemented (Zimmer) | Not specified | Not specified | General | |||
| Mid-term follow-up (3–10 years) | |||||||
| Chow, 201546 | JOA | Case control | Custom vs | Custom short uncemented (Biomet) | Less-invasive PL | 2004-2006 | Pts < 70 years |
| off-the-shelf | Off-the-shelf short uncemented (Stryker) | Less-invasive PL | 2004-2006 | General | |||
| Al-Khateeb, 201443 | JOA | Case series | None | Custom uncemented (Stanmore Implants Worldwide) | AL or P | 1996-2003 | Pts w/ Legg-Calve-Perthes disease |
| Benum, 201013 | Acta Orthop | Prosp. case series | None | Custom uncemented (Scandinavian Customized Prostheses)b | DL | 1995-2009 | General |
| Götze, 200948 | AOTS | Case control | Custom vs | Custom uncemented (Endopro) | Not specified | Not specified | General |
| off-the-shelf | Off-the-shelf uncemented (Zimmer) | Not specified | Not specified | General | |||
| Albanese, 200949 | Acta Orthop | Case control | Short custom vs | Custom short uncemented (Stanmore Orthopaedics) | Not specified | Not specified | General |
| ultra-short custom | Custom ultra-short uncemented (DePuy) | Not specified | Not specified | General | |||
| Reize, 200715 | Int Orthop | Case series | None | Custom uncemented, (Endopro) | Bauer’s lateral | Not specified | Pts < 60 years |
| Wettstein, 20056 | CORR | Case series | None | Custom uncemented (Symbios) | AL | 1990-1995 | Pts < 65 years |
| Aubaniac, 199551 | Surg Technol Int | Case control | Custom from CT (Symbios) vs | Custom uncemented (Symbios) | Not specified | Not specified | General |
| custom from radiograph (Egoform) | Custom uncemented HA-coated (Egoform) | Not specified | Not specified | General | |||
| Long-term follow-up (>10 years) | |||||||
| Jacquet, 20204 | Orthopäde | Case series | Young patients (< 50 years) vs | Custom uncemented (Symbios) | AL (Watson-Jones) | 1990–2002 | Young pts (17–50 years) |
| Severe DDH (Crowe III or IV) | Custom uncemented (Symbios) | AL (Watson-Jones) | 1990–2013 | Pts w/ DDH (Crowe grade III or IV) | |||
| Flecher, 20185 | Int Orthop | Case series | None | Custom uncemented (Symbios) | AL (Watson-Jones) | 1992-2005 | Conversion from fused hip to THA |
| Akbar, 200944 | Acta Orthop | Case series | None | Custom uncemented (Orthopedic Services) | AL | 1992-1994 | Young pts < 40 years |
Abbreviations: AL, anterolateral; PL, posterolateral; DL, direct lateral; P, posterior; pts, patients; DDH, developmental dysplasia of the hip; THA, total hip arthroplasty; CT, computer tomography
A maxmimum of 16% of the THAs included were revision surgeries.
Two different stem generations were used, the first generation before January 2001 (n=50), and the second generation after January 2001 (n=8).
Patient demographics of the studies included in the systematic review
| Author, year | Control/comparator | Indications | Initial cohort | Age (yrs) | BMI (kg/m2) | Male | |||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary OA | AVN | DDH (Crowe I –IV) | DDH (Crowe I & II) | DDH (Crowe III & IV) | Posttraumatic | Other | Hips | Patients | Mean | ±SD | (Range) | Mean | ±SD | (Range) | n | (%) | |||||||||||
| Short-term follow-up (≤ 2 years) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Sandiford, 201047 | Custom stem vs | 141 | (100%) | 141 | 134 | 54 | (25 | –65) | 26 | (17 | –38) | 75 | (56%) | ||||||||||||||
| hip resurfacing | 141 | (100%) | 141 | 137 | 55 | (28 | –65) | 26 | (18 | –36) | 93 | (68%) | |||||||||||||||
| Grant, 200550 | Custom uncemented vs | Non-inflammatory arthritis | 19 | 37 | 52 | (31 | –65) | 16 | (43%) | ||||||||||||||||||
| off-the-shelf cemented | Non-inflammatory arthritis | 19 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Bargar, 19899 | Custom primary vs | Pain and disability | 81 | 54 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| custom revision vs | Pain and disability | 75 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| off-the-shelf primary & revisionb | Pain and disability | 25 | 54 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Mid-term follow-up (3–10 years) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Chow, 201546 | Custom vs | OA, AVN, post-traumatic, inflammatory arthritis | 69 | 61a | 56 | ±9 | (16 | –69) | 29 | ±6a | (26 | –55)a | 35 | (57%) | |||||||||||||
| off-the-shelf | Not specified | 148 | 139a | 65 | ±12 | (30 | –86) | 29 | ±7a | (20 | –67)a | 79 | (57%) | ||||||||||||||
| Al-Khateeb, 201443 | None | Secondary OA to Legg-Calve-Perthes disease | 15 | 14 | 33 | (23 | –55) | 6 | (43%) | ||||||||||||||||||
| Benum, 201013 | None | 58 | (30%) | 7 | (4%) | 88 | (46%) | 38 | (20%) | 191 | 48 | (20 | –65) | 76 | (39%) | ||||||||||||
| Götze, 200948 | Custom vs | 11 | (46%) | 2 | (8%) | 9 | (38%) | 2 | (8%) | 24 | 20 | 54 | (32 | –65) | |||||||||||||
| off-the-shelf | 13c | (57%) | 6c | (26%) | 3c | (13%) | 23 | 20 | 59 | (45 | –75) | ||||||||||||||||
| Albanese, 200949 | Short custom vs | Primary and secondary OA | 11a | 63 | ±10 | 25 | ±4 | 9 | (82%) | ||||||||||||||||||
| ultra-short custom | Primary and secondary OA | 26a | 50 | ±9 | 26 | ±4 | 22 | (85%) | |||||||||||||||||||
| Reize, 200715 | None | 100 | (57%) | 11 | (6%) | 35 | (20%) | 5 | (3%) | 60b | (34%) | 175 | 54 | (26 | –68b) | ||||||||||||
| Wettstein, 20056 | None | 62 | (100%) | 62 | 57 | 57 | (35 | –64) | 33 | (58%) | |||||||||||||||||
| Aubaniac, 199551 | Custom from CT (Symbios) vs | 81 | (24%) | 94 | (28%) | 37 | (11%) | 128b | (38%) | 215 | 56 | ||||||||||||||||
| custom from radiograph (Egoform) | 122 | 49 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Long-term follow-up (> 10 years) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Jacquet, 20204 | Young patients (< 50 years) vs | 41 | (18%) | 77 | (33%) | 88 | (38%) | 27 | (12%) | 233a | 212 | 40 | ±7 | (20 | –50) | 25 | ±5 | (16 | –48) | 106 | (50%) | ||||||
| Severe DDH (Crowe III or IV) | 26 | (100%) | 26 | 23a | 45 | ±12 | (17 | –73) | 27 | ±6 | (16 | –52) | 13 | (62%) | |||||||||||||
| Flecher, 20185 | None | 3 | (13%) | 6 | (26%) | 14 | (61%) | 23 | 23 | 49 | ±9 | (28 | –69) | 25 | (19 | –33) | 13 | (57%) | |||||||||
| Akbar, 200944 | None | 2 | (3%) | 16 | (22%) | 25 | (35%) | 12 | (17%) | 17 | (24%) | 72 | 61 | 35 | (22 | –40) | 26 | ±5 | (18 | –41) | 33a | (54%) | |||||
Abbreviations: DDH, developmental dysplasia of the hip; OA, osteoarthritis; AVN, avascular necrosis; BMI, body mass index; yrs, years; CT, computer tomography
Discrepancy in data between tables and text
A maxmimum of 16% of the THAs included were revision surgeries. For the paper by Reize & Wülker15 some of the revision patients were > 60 years.
Missing data for 1 hip
None of the studies found were randomized controlled trials; there was only one prospective non-comparative study (case series),13 while seven were retrospective comparative studies (case controls)9,46–51 and six were retrospective non-comparative studies (case series).4–6,15,43,44 Four studies compared custom versus off-the-shelf stems,9,46,48,50 one of which also compared primary versus revision custom stems.9 Additionally, one study compared short versus ultra-short custom stems,49 one study compared CT-based versus radiograph-based custom stems,51 one study compared outcomes in patients with severe DDH (Crowe III or IV) versus young patients (< 50 years),4 and one study compared THA using custom stems versus hip resurfacing.47
Quality assessment using the JBI 10-point checklist indicated that four studies43,44,49,50 scored seven or more points, six studies4–6,46–48 scored between four and six points, while four studies9,13,15,51 scored three points or less (Fig. 2).
The methodological quality of the studies was assessed according to the Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist.
Citation: EFORT Open Reviews 6, 12; 10.1302/2058-5241.6.210053
Brands and designs of custom stems
The 14 included studies reported on THA using custom stems designed by seven different manufacturers: Symbios (four studies), Scandinavian Customized Prosthesis (two studies), Endopro (two studies), Orthopedic Services (one study), Biomet (one study), Stanmore (two studies) and DePuy (one study) (Table S1 in the supplemental material). It is worth noting that one of the aforementioned studies compared outcomes of custom stems by Stanmore versus DePuy, while two studies did not specify the stem manufacturer. All 14 studies specified that the custom stems used were uncemented, of which 11 specified that they were coated with hydroxyapatite (HA), either fully (n = 3) or partially (n = 6). Only nine studies specified that custom stems were made of titanium, while the other five studies did not specify stem material. The custom stems were described as “straight” in three studies, “metaphyseal”-engaging/-filling in four studies and “intramedullary proximal femoral fit” in two studies, while stem morphology was not specified in five studies. The stems were ultra-short, short or medium-short in three studies, long in five studies, and the length was not specified in six studies. Detailed information regarding stem design and stem positioning are presented in the appendix if available in the original articles.
Survival, revisions and reoperations
Kaplan-Meier survival for custom stems was reported in three studies (Table 3): 100% at ten years considering stem revision for any reason,43 100% at 14 years considering stem revision for any reason44 and 95% at 25 years considering stem revision for aseptic reasons.4 None of the four studies that compared custom to off-the-shelf implants reported stem survival.
Rates of revisions, reoperations and survival for the studies included in the systematic review
| Author, year | Control/comparator | FU (yrs) | Revision rate | Reoperation rate | KM survival (revision of any component for any reason) | KM survival (stem revision for any reason) | KM survival (stem revision for aseptic reasons) | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | (%) | n | (%) | FU (yrs) | (%) | (95% CI) | FU (yrs) | (%) | (95% CI) | FU (yrs) | (%) | (95% CI) | ||||||
| Short-term follow-up (≤ 2 years) | ||||||||||||||||||
| Sandiford, 201047 | Custom stem vs | 2 | 0 | (0%) | ||||||||||||||
| hip resurfacing | 1 | 0 | (0%) | |||||||||||||||
| Bargar, 19899 | Custom primary vs | 2 | 1 | (1%) | ||||||||||||||
| custom revision | 1 | (1%) | ||||||||||||||||
| Mid-term follow-up (3–10 years) | ||||||||||||||||||
| Chow, 201546 | Custom vs | 6 | 2 | (3%) | ||||||||||||||
| off-the-shelf | 6 | 2 | (1%) | |||||||||||||||
| Al-Khateeb, 201443 | None | 10 | 3 | (20%) | 2 | (13%) | 10 | 100% | ||||||||||
| Benum, 201013 | None | 7 | 2 | (1%) | 0 | (0%) | ||||||||||||
| Götze, 200948 | Custom vs | 4 | 2 | (8%) | ||||||||||||||
| off-the-shelf | 5 | 0 | (0%) | |||||||||||||||
| Reize, 200715 | None | 6 | 0 | (0%) | ||||||||||||||
| Wettstein, 20056 | None | 8 | 0 | (0%) | ||||||||||||||
| Long-term follow-up (> 10 years) | ||||||||||||||||||
| Jacquet, 20204 | Young patients (< 50 years) vs | 20 | 23 | (10%) | 12 | (5%) | 20 | 77% | (72 | –83) | 25 | 95% | (92 | –97) | ||||
| Severe DDH (Crowe III or IV) | 16 | 6 | (23%) | 1 | (4%) | 15 | 73% | (45 | –100) | 15 | 88% | (77 | –99) | |||||
| Flecher, 20185 | None | 15 | 1 | (4%) | 2 | (8%) | 15 | 96% | (92 | –99) | ||||||||
| Akbar, 200944 | None | 14 | 5 | (7%) | 14 | 100% | ||||||||||||
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; FU, follow-up; KM, Kaplan-Meier; yrs, years
Revisions were reported in ten studies, with rates ranging from 0% to 1% in the short-term (≤ 2 years),9,47 0% to 20% in the mid-term (> 2 to 10 years)6,13,15,43,46,48,51 and 4% to 10% in the long-term (> 10 years)4,5,44 (Table 3,Fig. 3). Of the four studies that compared custom to off-the-shelf stems, only two reported revision rates46,48 and found them to be higher in the mid-term for custom stems (3% to 8% versus 0% to 1%), but neither mentioned statistical significance, likely because their cohort sizes were insufficient.
Complications rate and revisions rate reported across the included studies.
Citation: EFORT Open Reviews 6, 12; 10.1302/2058-5241.6.210053
Reoperations that did not require implant removal were reported in five studies, with rates ranging from 0% to 13% in the mid-term (> 2 to10 years)6,13,43 and 5% to 8% in the long-term (> 10 years)4, 5 (Table 3). None of the four studies that compared custom to off-the-shelf stems reported on reoperation rates.
Complications
Complications including intra- and post-operative events were reported in 13 studies, with rates ranging from 3% in the short-term (≤ 2 years),47, 0% to 11% in the mid-term (> 2 to 10 years)6,13,15,43,46,48,51 and 0% to 4% in the long-term (> 10 years)4,5,44 (Table 4). Of the four studies that compared custom to off-the-shelf stems, only two reported complication rates46,48 with conflicting results; one reporting fewer complications using off-the-shelf stems (8% versus 0% at 5 years),48 while the other reported fewer complications using custom stems (0% versus 3% at 6 years),46 but neither study mentioned statistical significance, likely because their cohort sizes were insufficient. Of the 13 studies that reported complications, six specified that there were no intraoperative complications, while seven specifically reported them. The most common intraoperative complication was femoral fracture. Reize & Wülker15, who reported on one of the largest series of 175 hips, used a straight, rectangular, Ti-alloy implant (Adaptiva, Endopro), and observed 12 greater trochanter fractures and eight shaft fissures requiring wire cerclage, notably “in patients who received large-volume stems with prominent ventral ribs,” and that excessive limb-length was a common problem “because surgeons could not reach the correct implantation depth”. Of the four studies that compared custom to off-the-shelf stems, only two reported intraoperative complication rates with conflicting results; one reporting fewer complications using off-the-shelf stems (4% versus 0% at 5 years),48 while the other reported fewer complications using custom stems (0% versus 1% at 6 years),46 but neither mentioned statistical significance, likely because their cohort sizes were insufficient. Only one of the 14 studies reported an instance where the custom prosthesis failed to fit adequately; however, this was not in the primary THA group, but in the first revision THA case. Bargar9 reported that during revision surgery “an unrecognized open-section defect was present laterally from a guttering of the femur at an earlier revision”, which made it impossible to implant the stem. In this case, the patient had a second surgery with another custom prosthesis two weeks later. The authors report that, following that instance, they requested the manufacturer to change the way in which custom stems are designed thereafter: “(1) increased anterior flare, (2) use of collars if the canal-calcar ratio was greater than 0.7, (3) bevelling of AP surfaces, and (4) increased stem diameters to provide better fill in the AP dimension distally”.
Information on complications for the studies included in the systematic review
| Author, year | Control/comparator | FU (yrs) | Complications rate* | Intraoperative complications rate* | Detailed intraoperative complications | LLD PREOP (mm) | LLD POSTOP (mm) | Notes | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | (%) | n | (%) | Mean | ±SD | (Range) | Mean | ±SD | (Range) | |||||||
| Short-term follow-up (≤ 2 years) | ||||||||||||||||
| Sandiford, 201047 | Custom stem vs | 2 | 4 | (3%) | 0 | (0%) | ||||||||||
| hip resurfacing | 1 | 5 | (4%) | 0 | (0%) | |||||||||||
| Grant, 200550 | Custom uncemented vs | 2 | 2 | (5%) | 0 | (0%) | ||||||||||
| off-the-shelf cemented | 2 | |||||||||||||||
| Bargar, 19899 | Custom primary vs | 2 | 11 | (7%) | 11 | (7%) | Femoral cracks treated by CW | |||||||||
| custom revision | ||||||||||||||||
| Mid-term follow-up (3–10 years) | ||||||||||||||||
| Chow, 201546 | Custom vs | 6 | 0 | (0%) | 0 | (0%) | ||||||||||
| off-the-shelf | 6 | 4 | (3%) | 1 | (1%) | Femoral fracture treated by CW | ||||||||||
| Al-Khateeb, 201443 | None | 10 | 1 | (7%) | 0 | (0%) | ||||||||||
| Benum, 201013 | None | 7 | 13 | (7%) | 2 | (1%) | Femoral fissures treated by CW | |||||||||
| Götze, 200948 | Custom vs | 4 | 2 | (8%) | 1 | (4%) | Femoral fracture treated by CW | |||||||||
| off-the-shelf | 5 | 0 | (0%) | 0 | (0%) | |||||||||||
| Reize, 200715 | None | 6 | 20 | (11%) | 20 | (11%) | Femoral fractures/fissures treated by CW | LLD in 24% | ||||||||
| Wettstein, 20056 | None | 8 | 0 | (0%) | 0 | (0%) | ||||||||||
| Aubaniac, 199551 | Custom from CT (Symbios) vs | 4 | 15 | (4%) | 2 | (1%) | Femoral fractures treated by CW | |||||||||
| custom from radiograph (Egoform) | 5 | 2 | (2%) | "Errors in anteversion" | ||||||||||||
| Long-term follow-up (> 10 years) | ||||||||||||||||
| Jacquet, 20204 | Young patients (<50 years) vs | 20 | 8 | (3%) | 0 | (0%) | 2 | (0 | –13) | LLD >5 mm in 6% | ||||||
| Severe DDH (Crowe III or IV) | 16 | 2 | (8%) | 0 | (0%) | 7 | (0 | –17) | ||||||||
| Flecher, 20185 | None | 15 | 0 | (0%) | 0 | (0%) | 21 | ±12 | (-5 | –50) | 8 | ±2 | (0 | –12) | LLD >5mm in 22% | |
| Akbar, 200944 | None | 14 | 3 | (4%) | 1 | (1%) | Femoral fissure left untreated | |||||||||
Abbreviations: FU, follow-up; yrs, years; LLD, limb length discrepancy; CW, cerclage wires; CT, computer tomography
None of these complications required revision or reoperation
Clinical scores
Post-operative HHSs were reported in 13 of the 14 studies, with scores ranging from 95 to 96 in the short-term (≤ 2 years),47,50 80 to 99 in the mid-term (> 2 to 10 years)6,9,15–17,43,46,48,49,51 and 87 to 94 in the long-term (≥ 10 years)4,5,44,45 (Table 5, Fig. 4). All four studies that compared custom to off-the-shelf stems reported post-operative HHS; three favoured custom stems (96 versus 94, 95 versus 94 and 94 versus 86),9,46,50 while one favoured off-the-shelf stems (91 versus 95),48 but none found a statistically significant difference between groups.
Clinical outcomes of the studies included in the systematic review
| Author, year | Control/comparator | Final cohort | FU (yrs) | HHS preop | HHS postop | Pain free postop | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hips | Patients | Mean | (Range) | Mean | ±SD | (Range) | Mean | ±SD | (Range) | n | (%) | |||||
| Short-term follow-up (≤ 2 years) | ||||||||||||||||
| Sandiford, 201047 | Custom stem vs | 134 | 2 | (0 | –3) | 46 | (7 | –87) | 96 | (65 | –100) | |||||
| hip resurfacing | 137 | 1 | (0 | –3) | 54 | (7 | –97) | 97 | (59 | –100) | ||||||
| Grant, 200550 | Custom uncemented vs | 2 | 95b | |||||||||||||
| off-the-shelf cemented | 2 | 94b | ||||||||||||||
| Mid-term follow-up (3–10 years) | ||||||||||||||||
| Chow, 201546 | Custom vs | 69 | 61a | 6 | (5 | –7) | 55 | (20 | –90) | 96 | (55 | –100) | ||||
| off-the-shelf | 148 | 139a | 6 | (4 | –8) | 52 | (10 | –100) | 94 | (55 | –100) | |||||
| Al-Khateeb, 201443 | None | 15 | 14 | 10 | (5 | –15) | 41 | (27 | –57) | 80 | (51 | –94) | ||||
| Benum, 201013 | None | 152 | 7 | |||||||||||||
| Götze, 200948 | Custom vs | 4 | (3 | –5) | 43 | ±9 | (29 | –61) | 91 | ±11 | (56 | –100) | ||||
| off-the-shelf | 5 | (3 | –5) | 46 | ±16 | (14 | –72) | 95 | ±6 | (76 | –100) | |||||
| Albanese, 200949 | Short custom vs | 3 | 43 | 95 | ||||||||||||
| ultra-short custom | 3 | 47 | 96 | |||||||||||||
| Reize, 200715 | None | 175 | 6 | (4 | –7) | 47 | 96 | 148 | (84%) | |||||||
| Wettstein, 20056 | None | 62 | 57 | 8 | (6 | –11) | 61 | ±8 | (28 | –78) | 99 | ±2 | (84 | –100) | ||
| Aubaniac, 199551 | Custom from CT (Symbios) vs | 4 | 44 | 93 | ||||||||||||
| custom from radiograph (Egoform) | 5 | 91 | ||||||||||||||
| Bargar, 19899 | Custom primary vs | 3c | 94 | (89%) | ||||||||||||
| custom revision vs | 3c | 82 | ||||||||||||||
| off-the-shelf primary & revision | 3c | 86 | (36%) | |||||||||||||
| Long-term follow-up (> 10 years) | ||||||||||||||||
| Jacquet, 20204 | Young patients (< 50 years) vs | 200 | 20 | (14 | –27) | 54 | (26 | –87) | 94 | (48 | –100) | |||||
| Severe DDH (Crowe III or IV) | 26 | 23a | 16 | (10 | –22) | 42 | (21 | –70) | 82 | (48 | –96) | |||||
| Flecher, 20185 | None | 15 | (9 | –22) | 59 | (40 | –84) | 89 | (75 | –100) | 21 | (91%) | ||||
| Akbar, 200944 | None | 70 | 59 | 14 | (10 | –16) | 41 | (17 | –58) | 87 | (42 | –100) | 44 | (63%) | ||
Abbreviations: FU, follow-up; yrs, years; HHS, Harris hip score; CT, computer tomography; preop, preoperatively; postop, postoperatively
Discrepancy in data between tables and text
Values reported are median, not mean
Number of hips at this follow-up not specified
Pre- and post-operative Harris hip score reported across the included studies.
Citation: EFORT Open Reviews 6, 12; 10.1302/2058-5241.6.210053
One study also reported the Oxford hip score (OHS) and the hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score (HOOS), while two studies reported the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) activity score and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and three studies reported the Postel Merle d’Aubigne (PMA) score (Table 5 and Table S2 in the supplemental material). Of the four studies that compared custom to off-the-shelf stems, only one reported on clinical scores other than the HHS, with a lower (better) postoperative WOMAC for off-the-shelf stems (four versus three), although the difference was not statistically significant.46
Radiographic outcomes
Radiographic outcomes of the custom stems were reported in 11 of the 14 studies, with three studies reporting on bony ingrowth and pedestal formation, four studies reporting on stem migration and femoral cortical hypertrophy, six studies reporting on femoral radiolucent lines and seven studies reporting on stem subsidence, femoral osteolysis and heterotopic ossification (Table 6). None of the studies reported on 3D sizing or positioning of implants, nor compared the planned and postoperative hip architecture.
Radiographic outcomes of the studies included in the systematic review
| Author, year | Control/comparator | Final cohort | FU (yrs) | Bony ingrowth | Stem subsidence | Stem migration | Femoral osteolysis | Femoral radiolucent lines | Femoral cortical hypertrophy | Heterotopic ossification | Pedestal formation | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hips | Patients | Mean | (Range) | n | (%) | n | (%) | n | (%) | n | (%) | n | (%) | n | (%) | n | (%) | n | (%) | |||
| Short-term follow-up (≤ 2 years) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Bargar, 19899 | Custom primary vs | 81 | 2 | 12c | (8%) | |||||||||||||||||
| custom revision | 75 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Mid-term follow-up (3–10 years) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Chow, 201546 | Custom vs | 69 | (100%) | 0b | (0%) | 0 | (0%) | 2 | (3%) | |||||||||||||
| off-the-shelf | 148 | (100%) | 1b | (1%) | 0 | (0%) | 1 | (1%) | ||||||||||||||
| Al-Khateeb, 201443 | None | 15 | 14 | 10 | (5 | –15) | 2 | (13%) | 1 | (7%) | ||||||||||||
| Götze, 200948 | Custom vs | 24 | 20 | 4d | (17%) | 7 | (29%) | 0 | (0%) | 3 | (13%) | 4 | (17%) | |||||||||
| off-the-shelf | 23 | 20 | 2d | (9%) | 8 | (35%) | 0 | (0%) | 0 | (0%) | 0 | (0%) | ||||||||||
| Albanese, 200949 | Short custom vs | 0 | (0%) | 0 | (0%) | 0 | (0%) | |||||||||||||||
| ultra-short custom | 0 | (0%) | 0 | (0%) | 0 | (0%) | ||||||||||||||||
| Reize, 200715 | None | 175 | 6 | (4 | –7) | 0b | (0%) | 0 | (0%) | 0 | (0%) | 101 | (58%) | 19 | (11%) | |||||||
| Wettstein, 20056 | None | 62 | 57 | 8 | (6 | –11) | 0b | (0%) | 0 | (0%) | 0 | (0%) | 2 | (3%) | ||||||||
| Aubaniac, 199551 | Custom from CT (Symbios) vs | (68%) | 2b | |||||||||||||||||||
| custom from radiograph (Egoform) | (64%) | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Long-term follow-up (> 10 years) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Jacquet, 20204 | Young patients (<50 years) vs | 125a | 112 | 20 | (15 | –27) | 0 | (0%) | 7 | (6%) | 6 | (5%) | 0 | (0%) | ||||||||
| Severe DDH (Crowe III or IV) | 26 | 23a | 0 | (0%) | 2 | (8%) | 0 | (0%) | 1 | (4%) | ||||||||||||
| Flecher, 20185 | None | 15 | (9 | –22) | 1 | (4%) | 0 | (0%) | 3 | (13%) | ||||||||||||
| Akbar, 200944 | None | 70 | 59 | 14 | (10 | –16) | 0b | (0%) | 0e | (0%) | 0 | (0%) | 3 | (4%) | 46 | (66%) | 22 | (31%) | ||||
Abbreviations: FU, follow-up; yrs, years; CT, computer tomography
Discrepancy in numbers between tables and text
Defined as >2mm
Defined as >3mm in the first six weeks
Defined as vertical migration >3mm
Defined as >5mm compared with baseline AP radiographs
Of the four studies that compared custom to off-the-shelf stems, only two reported radiographic outcomes46,48 and found 100% bony ingrowth and no radiolucent lines for both custom and off-the-shelf stems. Additionally, custom stems had lower rates of stem subsidence (0% versus 1%)46 and femoral osteolysis (29% versus 35%),48 but higher rates of stem migration (17% versus 9%),48 femoral cortical hypertrophy (13% versus 0%)48 and pedestal formation (3% to 17% versus 0% to 1%).46,48 Neither study mentioned statistical significance, likely because their cohort sizes were insufficient. The difference between stem subsidence and stem migration was not clearly specified in any of the studies; however, the thresholds were different across studies, ranging from > 2mm to > 5mm.
Discussion
The most important finding of this systematic review is that primary THA using 3D image-based custom stems in unselected patients provides limited but promising clinical and radiographic outcomes in the short-, mid-, and long-term. Despite excellent survival of custom stems, ranging from 100% at 14 years to 95% at 25 years, the evidence available in the literature remains insufficient to recommend routine use of custom stems in unselected patients. Nonetheless, the present systematic review is the first to synthesize the literature to date on the under-investigated topic of custom stems for THA. While the four comparative studies found no statistically significant differences between outcomes of custom stems and off-the-shelf stems, they reported contradictory findings regarding complication rates and clinical scores, which were better for custom stems in three studies,9,46,50 but better for off-the-shelf stems in one study.48 These contradictory findings could be explained by the heterogeneity in custom stem designs by the seven different manufacturers, which varied in terms of proximal geometry (straight or metaphyseal-engaging), HA coating (full or partial), and length (ultra-short, short, medium-short or long).
Across the 14 studies included in this systematic review, reporting on stem design and manufacturing techniques was both insufficient and inconsistent, which made it difficult to classify stems according to these parameters. Only two studies6,46 provided sufficient information on the six design parameters of manufacturer, proximal geometry, length, fixation, material and coating (seven studies reported on five parameters, three reported on four, one reported on three, and one reported only on one). The findings of the present systematic review therefore suggest that it would be inappropriate to consider all custom stems as a single entity or family of implants, but rather they should be considered as a concept that includes several designs and philosophies. Future studies on custom stems should provide specific details regarding proximal geometry, length, fixation, material and coating, as well as management of femoral offset and anteversion. The authors also propose a classification system to help patients and surgeons distinguish between custom stem designs based primarily on their proximal geometry and length (long or short metaphyseal-engaging stems, or long or short straight stems).
Custom stem manufacturers can either base their design on an off-the-shelf stem, which they modify to match patient anatomy in one plane15,48 or base their design on 3D patient anatomy, by fully optimizing femoral fit and fill in 3D.4–6 When creating custom stems, it is important that surgeons have an active role in stem design, instead of blindly trusting the manufacturer, because stem design must be fine-tuned to ensure it matches patient anatomy and corrects patient pathology. Thus, customization should be considered a continuous process of matching intramedullary anatomy, correction or restoration of extramedullary hip architecture, as well as optimizing surgical techniques.
Even though custom stems are designed preoperatively from 3D images of the femur, it is possible that during surgery they fail to fit adequately in the femoral canal or cause femoral fractures or cracks as the surgeon tries to implant them. Across the 14 studies reviewed, none of the 3D image-based custom stems for primary THA (1357 hips) failed to fit adequately; in fact, there was only one instance where the custom prosthesis failed to fit, and it occurred during a revision surgery, when an unrecognized open-section defect made it impossible to implant the stem.9 Across the 14 studies reviewed, seven reported femoral fractures or cracks; with Reize & Wülker15 who used long straight stems, reporting the highest incidence (11%), particularly in patients who received large-volume stems with prominent ventral ribs. Furthermore, the authors reported limb-length discrepancy (LLD) in 24% of patients because the surgeon could not reach the correct implantation depth. Femoral fractures or cracks ranged between 4% to 11% for long stems,9,15,48 compared to 0% to 1% for short stems,13,46 suggesting that longer custom stems may result in higher rates of intraoperative complications.
A drawback of using custom stems for unselected THA patients is their extra cost compared to off-the-shelf stems. In the early 1990s, custom stems were 2 to 3 times more expensive than off-the-shelf stems,6,15 though the unit cost of custom stems is decreasing4 with more efficient production processes as manufacturers achieve ‘economies of scale’. In fact, a study from 201017 stated that the cost of custom stems was approximately 40% greater than that of off-the-shelf stems. It remains unclear, however, whether custom stems enable short-term savings on hospital inventory, logistics and sterilisation of instruments, and whether they have the potential to reduce long-term expenditure on reoperations and revisions. The extra cost of custom stems could be justified for unselected patients if they provide better functional outcomes or implant survival, since the cost of revision THA is significantly greater than that of primary THA.52,53
Performing efficient, painless and long lasting THA for young adults is probably a major challenge for the coming decade, as recent publications demonstrate relatively poor results in this physically demanding population.54–56 From this point of view, custom implants should be considered as an opportunity to increase our understanding of THA through independent management of the intramedullary shape of the implant and extramedullary design (neck length, offset and anteversion). However, this systematic review identified an important gap in the literature, as none of the studies reported on 3D sizing or positioning of implants, nor compared the planned and postoperative hip architecture.57–59 Future studies should provide a rigorous evaluation of custom implants, including a 3D postoperative evaluation of anatomic parameters.
This systematic review has a number of limitations. First, there were only four studies which compared custom stems to off-the-shelf stems, and only two which reported clinical and radiographic outcomes in sufficient detail, therefore a meta-analysis could not be performed. Second, HHS was the only clinical score to be widely reported across studies. However, this score is known to have a ‘ceiling-effect’60 and is therefore unable to accurately distinguish small differences in high scores across groups. Third, in terms of the quality of the included studies, four of the 14 studies had a quality score of three points or less, out of ten. Moreover, although risk of bias was assessed using the JBI checklist, the influence of detected bias on the reported outcomes and interpretation thereof cannot be determined. Fourth, there was considerable heterogeneity across the included studies in terms of stem design, patient demographics, surgical procedures, follow-up times, etc. and these were not always the same across groups in comparative studies. Nonetheless, this can also be considered a benefit of custom stems because they provided satisfactory clinical and radiographic outcomes regardless of stem design, patient demographics, surgical procedures, follow-up times, etc.
Conclusions
This systematic review demonstrated that primary THA using 3D image-based custom stems in unselected patients provides limited but promising clinical and radiographic outcomes in the short-, mid-, and long-term. Despite excellent survival, the evidence available in the literature remains insufficient to recommend routine use of custom stems in unselected patients. Reporting on stem design and manufacturing techniques was insufficient and inconsistent across studies, and future studies should specify proximal geometry, length, fixation, material and coating, as well as management of femoral offset and anteversion. The authors propose a classification system to help distinguish between custom stem designs based primarily on their proximal geometry and length.
Take home messages
The rationale for custom stems is maximization of metaphyseal fit and fill, which could increase both rotational and axial stability.
Primary THA in unselected patients (including standard/general cases that have no anatomical deformities) using 3D image-based custom stems provides limited but promising clinical and radiographic outcomes in the short-, mid-, and long-term. There is not sufficient evidence to demonstrate that outcomes of custom stems are better than off-the-shelf stems.
Reporting on stem design and manufacturing techniques is insufficient and inconsistent across studies.
A classification system could be used to help patients and surgeons distinguish between custom stem designs based primarily on their proximal geometry and length (long or short metaphyseal-engaging stems, or long or short straight stems).
Open access
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed.
The authors declare no conflict of interest relevant to this work.
No benefits in any form have been received or will be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article.
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed.
Supplemental material is available for this paper at https://online.boneandjoint.org.uk/doi/suppl/10.1302/2058-5241.6.210053
References
- 1.↑
Evans JT Evans JP Walker RW Blom AW Whitehouse MR Sayers A . How long does a hip replacement last? A systematic review and meta-analysis of case series and national registry reports with more than 15 years of follow-up. Lancet 2019;393:647–654.
- 2.↑
Pakos EE Stafilas KS Tsovilis AE Vafiadis JN Kalos NK Xenakis TA . Long term outcomes of total hip arthroplasty with custom made femoral implants in patients with congenital disease of hip. J Arthroplasty 2015;30:2242–2247.
- 3.↑
Pozowski A Paprocka-Borowicz M Jarzab S Romaszkiewicz P Starzyk M . Custom made total hip replacement—necessary or not? Pol Orthop Traumatol 2009;74:272–276, 317–321.
- 4.↑
Jacquet C Flecher X Pioger C Fabre-Aubrespy M Ollivier M Argenson JN . Long-term results of custom-made femoral stems. Orthopade 2020;49:408–416.
- 5.↑
Flecher X Ollivier M Maman P Pesenti S Parratte S Argenson J-N . Long-term results of custom cementless-stem total hip arthroplasty performed in hip fusion. Int Orthop 2018;42:1259–1264.
- 6.↑
Wettstein M Mouhsine E Argenson JN Rubin PJ Aubaniac JM Leyvraz PF . Three-dimensional computed cementless custom femoral stems in young patients: mid-term follow-up. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2005;437:169–175.
- 7.↑
Sariali E Mouttet A Flecher X Argenson JN . Reproducing proximal femur anatomy with custom stems. In: Rivière C Vendittoli P-A , eds. Personalized Hip and Knee Joint Replacement. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2020:53–63.
- 8.↑
Robinson RP Clark JE . Uncemented press-fit total hip arthroplasty using the Identifit custom-molding technique. A prospective minimum 2-year follow-up study. J Arthroplasty 1996;11:247–254.
- 9.↑
Bargar WL . Shape the implant to the patient. A rationale for the use of custom-fit cementless total hip implants. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1989;249:73–78.
- 10.↑
Mulier M Jaecques SV Raaijmaakers M Nijs J Van der Perre G Jonkers I . Early periprosthetic bone remodelling around cemented and uncemented custom-made femoral components and their uncemented acetabular cups. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2011;131:941–948.
- 11.↑
Santori FS Manili M Fredella N Tonci Ottieri M Santori N . Ultra-short stems with proximal load transfer: clinical and radiographic results at five-year follow-up. Hip Int 2006;16:31–39.
- 12.↑
O’Brien S Wilson RK Hanratty BM, et al. The cemented custom femoral stem—a 10 year review. Hip Int 2007;17:194–204.
- 13.↑
Benum P Aamodt A . Uncemented custom femoral components in hip arthroplasty. A prospective clinical study of 191 hips followed for at least 7 years. Acta Orthop 2010;81:427–435.
- 14.↑
Götze C Rosenbaum D Hoedemaker J Bottner F Steens W . Is there a need of custom-made prostheses for total hip arthroplasty? Gait analysis, clinical and radiographic analysis of customized femoral components. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2009;129:267–274.
- 15.↑
Reize PK Wülker N . The Adaptiva custom-made stem—our reasons for not using it anymore. Int Orthop 2007;31:217–222.
- 16.↑
Patel RM Lo WM Cayo MA Dolan MM Stulberg SD . Stable, dependable fixation of short-stem femoral implants at 5 years. Orthopedics 2013;36:e301–e307.
- 17.↑
Flecher X Pearce O Parratte S Aubaniac J-M Argenson J-N . Custom cementless stem improves hip function in young patients at 15-year followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010;468:747–755.
- 18.↑
Moola S Munn Z Tufanaru C, et al. Systematic reviews of etiology and risk. In: Aromataris E Munn Z , eds. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis: JBI. 2020:chap 7. Available from https://synthesismanual.jbi.global (doi:).
- 19.↑
Santori FS Santori N . Mid-term results of a custom-made short proximal loading femoral component. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 2010;92-B:1231–1237.
- 20.
Pastrav LC Jaecques SV Jonkers I Perre GV Mulier M . In vivo evaluation of a vibration analysis technique for the per-operative monitoring of the fixation of hip prostheses. J Orthop Surg Res 2009;4:10.
- 21.
Nakano S Enishi T Hasan MY, et al. Arthroplasty using a custom-made cemented total hip prosthesis for an extensive giant cell tumor of the proximal femur: report of a patient followed up for over 30 years. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2009;129:1171–1175.
- 22.
Mulier M Pastrav C Van der Perre G . Per-operative vibration analysis: a valuable tool for defining correct stem insertion: preliminary report. Ortop Traumatol Rehabil 2008;10:576–582.
- 23.
Santori N Albanese CV Learmonth ID Santori FS . Bone preservation with a conservative metaphyseal loading implant. Hip Int 2006;16:16–21.
- 24.
Zadeh HG Hua J Walker PS Muirhead-Allwood SK . Uncemented total hip arthroplasty with subtrochanteric derotational osteotomy for severe femoral anteversion. J Arthroplasty 1999;14:682–688.
- 25.↑
O’Brien S James P Engela D Beverland D Kernohan G . Total hip replacement: a study of customized prostheses. Nurs Stand 1996;10:37–41.
- 26.↑
Dave A Jang B Bruce W . A short-term follow-up study of a surgeon-customised fully-coated hydroxyapatite femoral stem using a nation-wide joint registry. J Orthop 2016;13:90–94.
- 27.
Ezzibdeh RM Barrett AA Arora P Amanatullah DF . Learning curve for the direct superior approach to total hip arthroplasty. Orthopedics 2020;43:e237–e243.
- 28.
Nakamura S Minoda Y Ohta Y, et al. Preoperative morphology of the proximal femoral canal did not affect the postoperative bone mineral density change around the Zweymüller-type stem. Orthopedics 2019;42:e449–e453.
- 29.
Pierce TP Jauregui JJ Kapadia BH, et al. Second-generation versus first-generation cementless tapered wedge femoral stems. Orthopedics 2015;38:550–554.
- 30.
Scott RD Turner RH Leitzes SM Aufranc OE . Femoral fractures in conjunction with total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 1975;57-A:494–501.
- 31.↑
Tian S Goswami K Manrique J Blevins K Azboy I Hozack WJ . Direct anterior approach total hip arthroplasty using a morphometrically optimized femoral stem, a conventional operating table, without fluoroscopy. J Arthroplasty 2019;34:327–332.
- 32.↑
Muller S Irgens F Aamodt A . A quantitative and qualitative analysis of bone remodelling around custom uncemented femoral stems: a five-year DEXA follow-up. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2005;20:277–282.
- 33.
Sakai T Sugano N Nishii T Haraguchi K Ochi T Ohzono K . Stem length and canal filling in uncemented custom-made total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop 1999;23:219–223.
- 34.
Zerahn B Storgaard M Johansen T Olsen C Lausten G Kanstrup IL . Changes in bone mineral density adjacent to two biomechanically different types of cementless femoral stems in total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop 1998;22:225–229.
- 35.
Martini F Sell S Kremling E Küsswetter W . Determination of periprosthetic bone density with the DEXA method after implantation of custom-made uncemented femoral stems. Int Orthop 1996;20:218–221.
- 36.↑
Chang PB Robie BH Bartel DL . Preclinical cost analysis of orthopaedic implants: a custom versus standard cementless femoral component for revision total hip arthroplasty. J Biomech 1999;32:1309–1318.
- 37.↑
Dunlop DJ Donnachie NJ Treacy RB . Failure after customized curved femoral stems in total hip arthroplasty for Paget’s disease. J Arthroplasty 2000;15:398–401.
- 38.↑
Chatterjee S Roy S Majumder S RoyChowdhury A . Biomechanical analysis to probe role of bone condition and subject weight in stiffness customization of femoral stem for improved periprosthetic biomechanical response. J Biomech Eng 2020;142:101002.
- 39.
Wen-ming X Ai-min W Qi W Chang-hua L Jian-fei Z Fang-fang X . An integrated CAD/CAM/robotic milling method for custom cementless femoral prostheses. Med Eng Phys 2015;37:911–915.
- 40.↑
Hazlehurst KB Wang CJ Stanford M . The potential application of a Cobalt Chrome Molybdenum femoral stem with functionally graded orthotropic structures manufactured using Laser Melting technologies. Med Hypotheses 2013;81:1096–1099.
- 41.↑
Hua J Walker PS Muirhead-Allwood SK Engelhardt F Bentley G . Custom uncemented revision stems based on a femoral classification. Hip Int 2010;20:18–25.
- 42.↑
Visgauss JD Perrin DL Wilson DA Griffin AM Wunder JS Ferguson PC . Midterm success of a custom, non-fluted, diaphyseal, press-fit stem used with a tumor megaprosthesis system. J Arthroplasty 2020;35:1333–1338.
- 43.↑
Al-Khateeb H Kwok IH Hanna SA Sewell MD Hashemi-Nejad A . Custom cementless THA in patients with Legg-Calve-Perthes Disease. J Arthroplasty 2014;29:792–796.
- 44.↑
Akbar M Aldinger G Krahmer K Bruckner T Aldinger PR . Custom stems for femoral deformity in patients less than 40 years of age: 70 hips followed for an average of 14 years. Acta Orthop 2009;80:420–425.
- 45.↑
Dessyn E Flecher X Parratte S Ollivier M Argenson J-N . A 20-year follow-up evaluation of total hip arthroplasty in patients younger than 50 using a custom cementless stem. Hip Int 2019;29:481–488.
- 46.↑
Chow I Patel RM Stulberg SD . Short stem metaphyseal-engaging femoral implants: a case-controlled radiographic and clinical evaluation with eight year follow-up. J Arthroplasty 2015;30:600–606.
- 47.↑
Sandiford NA Muirhead-Allwood SK Skinner JA Hua J . Metal on metal hip resurfacing versus uncemented custom total hip replacement—early results. J Orthop Surg Res 2010;5:8.
- 48.↑
Götze C Rosenbaum D Hoedemaker J Bottner F Steens W . Is there a need of custom-made prostheses for total hip arthroplasty? Gait analysis, clinical and radiographic analysis of customized femoral components. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2009;129:267–274.
- 49.↑
Albanese CV Santori FS Pavan L Learmonth ID Passariello R . Periprosthetic DXA after total hip arthroplasty with short vs. ultra-short custom-made femoral stems: 37 patients followed for 3 years. Acta Orthop 2009;80:291–297.
- 50.↑
Grant P Aamodt A Falch JA Nordsletten L . Differences in stability and bone remodeling between a customized uncemented hydroxyapatite coated and a standard cemented femoral stem A randomized study with use of radiostereometry and bone densitometry. J Orthop Res 2005;23:1280–1285.
- 51.↑
Aubaniac JM Argenson JN . Why use a custom-made hip prosthesis? A 10-year experience. Surg Technol Int 1995;IV:457–463.
- 52.↑
Douglas SJ Remily EA Sax OC Pervaiz SS Delanois RE Johnson AJ . How does conversion total hip arthroplasty compare to primary? J Arthroplasty 2021;36:S155–S159.
- 53.↑
Klouche S Sariali E Mamoudy P . Total hip arthroplasty revision due to infection: a cost analysis approach. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2010;96:124–132.
- 54.↑
Bayliss LE Culliford D Monk AP, et al. The effect of patient age at intervention on risk of implant revision after total replacement of the hip or knee: a population-based cohort study. Lancet 2017;389:1424–1430.
- 55.
Kuijpers MFL Hannink G van Steenbergen LN Schreurs BW . Outcome of revision hip arthroplasty in patients younger than 55 years: an analysis of 1,037 revisions in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop 2020;91:165–170.
- 56.↑
Nugent M Young SW Frampton CM Hooper GJ . The lifetime risk of revision following total hip arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 2021;103-B:479–485.
- 57.↑
Cech A Kase M Kobayashi H, et al. Pre-operative planning in THA. Part III: do implant size prediction and offset restoration influence functional outcomes after THA? Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2020;140:563–573.
- 58.
Kase M O’Loughlin PF Aït-Si-Selmi T, et al. Pre-operative templating in THA. Part I: a classification of architectural hip deformities. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2020;140:129–137.
- 59.↑
Kobayashi H Cech A Kase M, et al. Pre-operative templating in THA. Part II: a CT-based strategy to correct architectural hip deformities. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2020;140:551–562.
- 60.↑
Wamper KE Sierevelt IN Poolman RW Bhandari M Haverkamp D . The Harris hip score: do ceiling effects limit its usefulness in orthopedics? Acta Orthop 2010;81:703–707.
