This Article Full Text (PDF) An erratum has been published Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal My Folders Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Wick, M. Articles by Lester, D. K. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Wick, M. Articles by Lester, D. K.

Radiological changes in second- and third-generation Zweymüller stems

Berufsgenossenschaftliche Kliniken Bergmannsheil, Department of Surgery and Traumatology, Ruhr-University of Bochum, Buerkle-de-la-Camp Platz 1, 44789 Bochum, Germany.

D. K. Lester, MD, Orthopaedic Surgeon

University of California San Francisco-Fresno, 6085 North First Street, Fresno, California 93710, USA.

Correspondence should be sent to Dr M. Wick.

The Alloclassic and Endoplus femoral stems have the same grit-blasted surface and are hot forged from the same titanium alloy. Only the external form of the implants differs slightly. It was our aim to examine the differences in radiographic bone response between the Alloclassic (second generation) and the Endoplus (third generation) femoral stems.

We compared 79 prostheses in 70 matched patients studied over a minimum of two years. Radiolucent lines, adaptive bone remodelling, subsidence, heterotopic bone formation and lysis were recorded in the Gruen zones.

Radiolucencies were mainly found in zones 1 and 7 but to a greater extent in the Endoplus than in the Alloclassic group (p < 0.001 in zone 1, p < 0.05 in zone 7). We found lucent lines in three or more Gruen zones in seven patients all of whom were in the Endoplus group (p < 0.05). Zones 2 and 6 had a significantly higher rate of lucencies in the Endoplus group (p < 0.001). We encountered a combination of proximal lucent lines in zones 1 and 7 with distal hypertrophy of the cortical bone in zones 2, 3, 5 and 6 in eight patients, all from the Endoplus group (p < 0.05). In other patients bone atrophy (stress shielding) in zones 2 and 6 was seen more frequently in the Endoplus than in the Alloclassic group (p < 0.001). In neither group was there radiological evidence of osteolysis. Heterotopic bone formation and subsidence occurred with similar frequency in both groups.

Our study shows that a small change in the form of the femoral implant can result in statistically significant radiological changes in bone remodelling. Whether this will result in clinical compromise is unknown. However, it seems likely that the Endoplus femoral stem will perform differently from the Alloclassic.