Vol.:(0123456789)1 3 Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery (2023) 143:6589–6597 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-023-04977-w ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY Retrospective clinical and X‑ray‑based outcome analysis of a short‑stem hip arthroplasty taking into account the operative learning curve over 7 years in the 3‑year control course Alexander Jahnke1  · Jan Köther‑Herrmann1 · Carlos A. Fonseca Ulloa1 · Torben Harz1 · Markus Rickert1,2 · Bernd Alexander Ishaque1,2 Received: 13 March 2023 / Accepted: 27 June 2023 / Published online: 7 July 2023 © The Author(s) 2023 Abstract Introduction Self-monitoring is crucial to work progressively with a high-quality standard. A retrospective analysis is a valuable tool for studying the postoperative outcome of a prosthesis and for evaluating the learning process for the surgeon. Materials and methods The learning process of one surgeon was analysed in 133 cases of hip arthroplasty. These were divided into seven groups representing the surgical years 2008–2014. Over the course of 3 postoperative years, a total of 655 radiographs were analysed at regarding three radiological quality parameters (centrum-collum-diaphyseal angle (CCD angle), intramedullary fit&fill ratio (FFR), and migration) and ancillary outcome parameters (Harris Hip Score (HHS), blood loss, operating time, and complications). This period was divided into five times: 1st-day post-op, 6 M, 12 M, 24 M, and 36 M. Bivariate Spearman's correlation analysis and pairwise comparisons were performed. Results The total collective achieved a proximal FFR of over 0.8. The distal prosthesis tip migrated and was located on the lateral cortex within the first months. The CCD angle initially showed a variation with a subsequent constant course. The HHS showed a significant increase (p < 0.001) to over 90 points postoperatively. Over time, the operating time and blood loss decreased. Intraoperative complications existed only at the beginning of the learning phase. A learning curve effect can be determined for almost all parameters by comparing the subject groups. Conclusions Operative expertise was shown to gain through a learning curve, whereby postoperative results corresponded to the system philosophy of the short hip stem prosthesis. The distal FFR and the distal lateral distance could represent the principle of the prosthesis, which overall could be an interesting approach for verification of a new parameter. Keywords Learning curve · Short stem · THA · Follow-up · Fit&fill Introduction Implantation of cementless hip prostheses with standard stems plays an important role in today's arthroplasty [1]. Cementless stems lead to a permanent change and dis- placement of the force transmission from prosthesis to bone. Due to different moduli of elasticity of the bone and the prosthesis, there is usually a reduced load in the proximal femur and consequently bone atrophy [2]. This phenomenon leads to an increase of relative movements in the periprosthetic bone via bone substance losses in the trochanteric region, resulting in losses of stability [3, 4]. Orthopaedics and orthopaedic surgery have the goal of developing primary endoprosthetic care that is as gentle on bone and soft tissue and allows for prosthesis replacement that is as atraumatic as possible. The answer to this objec- tive is found in the short-stem prosthesis. Its implantation allows partial preservation of the collum femoris, which also serves as an anchor. Accordingly, the load acting on the prosthesis would be distributed to the intertrochanteric region via medial portions of the femoral neck cortex and along the lateral diaphysis cortex. Overall, the physiologi- cal baseline should be better matched and bone atrophy * Bernd Alexander Ishaque Bernd.Ishaque@ortho.med.uni-giessen.de 1 Laboratory of Biomechanics, Justus-Liebig-University Giessen, Klinikstrasse 29, 35392 Giessen, Germany 2 Department of Orthopaedics and Orthopaedic Surgery, University Hospital Giessen and Marburg (UKGM), Klinikstrasse 33, 35392 Giessen, Germany http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s00402-023-04977-w&domain=pdf http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0968-9724 6590 Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery (2023) 143:6589–6597 1 3 should be minimized or avoided [5]. The implantation of a short-stem prosthesis is more demanding to that of a standard stem system and generally has a lower error tolerance as short stems should be implanted as large as possible and with cortical anchorage to achieve maximum fit&fill [6]. However, the choice of a maximum dimen- sioned short stem can also lead to intraoperative peripros- thetic fractures more quickly. The aim of this study was to determine whether the operative expertise of a surgeon improves when using the Metha® short-stem prosthesis over 7 years, and how the postoperative outcome of the patient groups differ according to the date of surgery. Material and methods Several radiological factors were determined as quality parameters of the postoperative outcome over a follow-up of 3 years: The intramedullary fit&fill ratio (FFR), subsid- ence (S), and the centrum-collum-diaphyseal angle (CCD angle). Between January 2007 and June 2020, 620 patients were treated with a Metha® short stem at the JLU Giessen Department of Orthopaedics and Orthopaedic Surgery. In the observed period from March 2008 to September 2014, 133 patients from this population who had undergone surgery by one surgeon (senior author) and had addition- ally appeared for all five postoperative radiological and clinical follow-up visits could be included in this study. Exclusion would occur if consent was cancelled, follow- up appointments were not kept, or patients died during the study period. During the three-year follow-up, data collection was performed on all patients at five follow-up appointments. Pelvic overview images were obtained in anterior–posterior (a.p.) and were retrospectively meas- ured and analysed. A positive ethics vote is available (file number: 209/18). Target parameters In addition to the main outcome parameters of FFR, S, and CCD angle, patients were clinically assessed at follow-up controls. The follow-ups took place immediately postopera- tively (post-op), after 6 months (6 M), 12 months (12 M), 24 months (24 M), and 36 months (36 M). The patient population was divided into seven groups (1–7) regarding the patients' respective dates of surgery. Demographic fac- tors, such as gender, age, height, weight, and BMI of the subjects, as well as clinical parameters, such as Harris Hip Score (HHS), operative time, intraoperative blood loss, and intraoperative complications, were collected and analysed as secondary outcome parameters. Radiological evaluation The measurement parameters FFR, S, and CCD angle were collected in a standardized manner. All radiographs were calibrated using a magnification factor of 1.15. To avoid rotation errors, the patients were placed in a supine posi- tion and fixed in a neutral zero position of the hip thanks to positioning aids. A planning sphere (diameter 25 mm) was used to correct the magnification factor. All radiographs were analysed using the software mediCAD (Hectec, Landshut, Germany; version 4.0.0.7). To ensure that all measurements were oriented to the same anatomical land- marks and that individual deviations were as small as pos- sible, the femoral shaft axis (FSA) was determined for all radiographs, to which all measurements were oriented. Stem migration Possible migration of the prosthesis was determined by the change in distance (S) between the prosthetic shoulder and the cranial tip of the greater trochanter. The distance (l) was determined both immediately postoperatively and at the respective follow-ups. With a measurement inaccuracy of 1 mm of the software, the following spoke displayed a clinically relevant migration from a value of at least 3 mm. Fit&fill ratio FFR was determined at three different positions (FFRproximal, FFRintermediate, and FFRdistal). To calculate the FFR, the FSA was first determined. The reference points (prosthetic shoul- der, lesser trochanter, and prosthetic stem tip) were marked using three orthogonal and standardized planes (Eproximal, Eintermediate, and Edistal) to the FSA. Thus, Eproximal was 15 mm above the tip of the trochanter minor, Edistal was 10 mm proximal to the tip of the stem, and Eintermediate was midway between Edistal and the prosthetic shoulder (Fig. 1). To determine the FFR, the distance (D) between the inner lateral and the inner medial cortex on all three measurement planes was measured. In addition, the medial gap (Gmed.) and the lateral gap (Glat.) were determined. In the proximal measurements, the lateral gap could be neglected because a clear identification of the lateral cortex was not possible. Thus, the distance in this area could only be defined as the distance between the inner medial cortex and the lateral edge of the prosthesis. The Metha® short-stem prosthesis aims for metaphyseal anchorage and apposition along the lateral cortex in the distal region. Accordingly, not only the distal FFR but also the distal lateral gap between the prosthesis and the lateral cortex were evaluated (Fig. 2). 6591Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery (2023) 143:6589–6597 1 3 Accordingly, the FFR results from the following formula: A quotient ≥ 0.8 indicates that the prosthesis fills ≥ 80% of the site and is interpreted as stable, and values < 0.8 as not stable [6, 7]. FFR = D − ( G lat + G med ) D . Statistics Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 26 (SPSS Inc. Chicago IL). Normal distribution was examined using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test and the Shapiro–Wilk test. Where a non-normally distributed collective was present, the Kruskal–Wallis test and a Spearman bivari- ate correlation analysis were applied for the metric-scaled variables. Results Collective The collective consisted of 70 women (53%) and 63 men (47%). Sixty-four operations (48.1%) were performed on the right and 69 implantations (51.8%) on the left hip joint. The most surgical indication was primary coxarthrosis with 83 cases (62.4%), followed by dysplasia coxarthrosis with 32 (24.1%) and femoral head necrosis with 13 cases (9.8%). Other indications included coxarthrosis due to post-trauma, and other previous diseases or surgeries, with a total of five cases (3.8%). Most patients were distributed almost equally among groups 3 to 6 (72% in total). The groups of 2008 and 2009 contained the lowest proportion of subjects (15% in total) (Fig. 3). The mean age of the total collective was 55 years, with a standard deviation of ± 12.1 years (range 17–78). Body mass index (BMI) averaged 27.4 kg/m2, with a standard deviation of 4.9 kg/m2. Centrum‑collum‑diaphyseal angle The CCD angle in the whole collective on postoperative day 1 was on average 135.2° ± 6.7°. A reduction of the CCD angle average from post-op to 6 M could be observed. Sub- sequently, the angle stagnated over the listed 3 years. This trend was also reflected when looking at the CCD angle as a function of the follow-up dates of the individual group- specific data. All groups had a lower CCD angle at 6 M than at post-op and, for the most part, stagnated consistently over time. In contrast, group 2 showed a minimal increase in CCD angle after 36 M and group 3 after 24 M (Fig. 4). Fit&fill ratio The proximal FFR was on average 0.91 ± 0.05 and increased to a value of 0.93 ± 0.05 at 36 M. A positive slope was also found in the progression of the group-specific graphs. Except for groups 2 and 4, the other ones showed a steady positive trend. Group 2 recorded a minimum (0.94) at 12 M, and group 4 recorded a minimum (0.91) at 6 M and 12 M. The Fig. 1 Determination of the FSA and the measurement levels Fig. 2 FFR determination at all levels 6592 Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery (2023) 143:6589–6597 1 3 intermediate FFR averaged 0.69 ± 0.08 at post-op, reached its minimum after 12  M (0.68 ± 0.08), and ended with a value of 0.69 ± 0.08 after 36 M. The overall intermedi- ate FFR also showed a constant trend among the groups. Except for group 2, the post-op measured medullary gap corresponded to the measured value obtained after 36 M. Comparing groups, groups 1 and 2 recorded slightly higher measured values than the others. An average value of ≥ 0.8 was not achieved by any of the curves. The distal FFR aver- aged at 0.46 ± 0.07. This value changed marginally over time, reaching 0.47 ± 0.08 after 36 M. In comparison to the other ones, group 3 had on average significantly higher FFR values of 0.66 to 0.69, whereas the other groups achieved a value range of 0.45 to a maximum of 0.52 (Fig. 5). Overall, a downward trend could be seen during the three-year period. In addition, groups 1 to 3 showed a brief increase in the distal lateral gap, which, however, never exceeded the initial value. All groups showed a range of values from 2.8 to 3.1 mm and ended at a minimum of 0.88 and a maximum of 2.1 mm. It was evident that as the years of surgery increased, the initial postoperative distal lateral distance decreased and the values and final values decreased significantly more as the year of surgery progressed (Fig. 6). Migration The collective recorded values from 0 mm to a maximum of 12 mm for migration over the total period. The mean of the collective ranged from 2.1 ± 1.8 mm from post-op to 2.7 ± 2.1 mm to 36 M. The upward trend, which was already evident in the increasing mean values of the overall collec- tive, also applied to the individual groups. Groups 1 to 3 showed the lowest migration values (1–2.18 mm), followed in ascending order by groups 6, 7, 5, and 4. Only the last two graphs of the groups exceeded the limit of 3 mm (Fig. 7). Clinical parameters The total operative time was 127 min for group 1 and 119  min for group 2. The maximum was reached in group 3 with 128 min. In the further course, the op-time decreased and reached a minimum of 94 and 95 min in Fig. 3 Patient distribution within the groups Fig. 4 Changes in CCD angle of all groups in the follow-up period 6593Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery (2023) 143:6589–6597 1 3 groups 6 and 7. Overall, the op-time decreased by approxi- mately 32 min from the beginning of the incision to the end of the suture from groups 1 to 7. The average intraop- erative blood loss of the respective groups 1–7 was 585 ml, reaching the average in group 1 and increasing to 690 ml by group 3 and decreasing thereafter. In the process, blood loss in group 4 returned to the baseline value of group 1 and fell below it to the nadir in group 7 at 490 ml. The pairwise comparison revealed a significant increase in HHS (p < 0.001) from preoperative to all postoperative values. There was no significant change in HHS between groups at the respective follow-up date. Correlation of the measurement parameters No significant correlations could be demonstrated among the FFR, the CCD angle, and the migration values over the obser- vation period. There were also no correlations between the epidemiological factors and the radiological values. Fig. 5 Course of the FFR of the individual groups Fig. 6 Course of the distal lateral distance of the individual groups 6594 Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery (2023) 143:6589–6597 1 3 Discussion In this study, 665 anterior–posterior pelvic images of a total of 133 patients between the years 2008–2014 were retro- spectively analysed by one investigator regarding three radi- ological quality parameters on five defined control dates. Compared with other studies, which analysed collective sizes ranging from a maximum of 22 up to 250 cases, this study can be ranked in the upper middle range in terms of sample number [7–19]. Only subjects who attended all 5 follow-up appointments were included. Thus, the collective size remained constant over the entire observation period and allowed for high reliability. Endoprosthetic treatment was always performed by the same surgeon and according to a standardized procedure. Surgical experience, and thus implant size decision patterns, is subject to a learning pro- cess [20, 21]. Centrum‑collum‑diaphyseal angle The initial hypothesis dealt with the question of whether the CCD angle of the prosthesis decreases in the postopera- tive course. The results showed that after an initial decrease within the first 6 months, the averaged CCD angle was con- stant. In summary, the first hypothesis was confirmed. A similar result was also reached by the Jerosch et al., who described that certain metadiaphyseal fixed prosthesis models tend to a system-related valgization [22]. Kutzner et al. investigated the biomechanical influence of the CCD angle using the metaphyseal anchored Optimys® short-stem prosthesis (Mathys Ltd., Bettlach, Switzerland) in a postoperative interval of 2 years. They found that val- gus alignment leads to increased initial migration, but the clinical outcomes remain unaffected [23, 24]. Moreover, no significant correlation was found between the CCD angle and the process of “stress shielding” or cortical hypertrophy. Accordingly, a varus-emphasized positioning would allow the tip of the prosthesis to be supported along the lateral cortex, as is desired for metaphyseal short-stem prostheses. In valgus alignment, as well as if the stem sizes were chosen too small, this contact would often be absent. Luger et al. found that varus stem alignment greater than 3° increased hip offset and led to the risk of undersizing the prosthesis [25]. Another investigation showed that there was no dif- ference in early fracture or failure rates between varus and neutrally aligned stems. Forced intraoperative correction of mild varus stem alignment may not be necessary and would unnecessarily increase fracture risk [26]. Another study investigated a short- to medium-term migration analysis of the Metha® prosthesis using EBRA-FCA [27]. Notable varus and valgus tilt were observed within the first 3 months. Especially for the Metha® prosthesis, a valgus position should be avoided, which could lead to migration without proximal-lateral support [28]. Neither the present work nor the previously mentioned studies did the CCD angle con- tinue to increase during the course after the initial increase. Accordingly, the initial change could be interpreted as the “settling” of the prosthesis and would depend solely on the initial positioning. A change in position would therefore be considered a sign of loosening for the Metha® prosthesis if it occurs after the initial phase of the first 6 to 12 months of “settling” [15]. Fit&fill ratio Distal FFR averaged at 0.47. The intermediate FFR reached a mean value of 0.69, in contrast to the proximal FFR, which increased from 0.91 to 0.93. Likewise, the relative propor- tion of patients with a proximal FFR value of ≥ 0.8 or ≥ 0.9 increased. On the first postoperative day, 130 of 133 cases Fig. 7 Migration course of the individual groups 6595Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery (2023) 143:6589–6597 1 3 showed an intramedullary seat near or above 0.8, which increased by two more cases after 3 years. Whereupon, the preoperative outcome secured proximal primary stability, and consequently, optimal secondary stability was achieved. Jahnke et al. analysed the influence of the marrow space fit of the Metha® prosthesis 3, 6, and 12 months postop- eratively. They achieved a proximal intramedullary canal fit of ≥ 0.8 in 100% of patients, and a sufficient intramedullary canal fit was observed for the intermediate FFR in 67.5% (3 M), 56.4% (6 M), and 42.6% (12 M) of cases. In the distal measurement area, the proportion of FFR ≥ 0.8 was 25.0% (3 M), 23.1% (6 M), and 10.3% (12 M), respectively [6]. This illustrates that the values of the intramedullary fit of the present study were able to meet the preoperative expecta- tions for the implant and offer valuable results regarding the postoperative radiological outcome [13, 29, 30]. According to the anchorage strategy of the short-stem prosthesis, both a high metaphyseal fit and support of the distal tip of the implant along the lateral cortex should be aimed for [19, 31]. Accordingly, an intramedullary fit of < 0.8 would have to be achieved in the distal section. As a relative measure, the FFR cannot represent the process of distal apposition. In the present study, however, the distance between the lateral cortex and the prosthesis was also deter- mined for the first time. This distal lateral distance can thus map the attachment process of the prosthesis and could be evaluated in the future as a new radiological parameter for evaluating the fit of a short-stem prosthesis. In this context, FFR measurements reflect the targeted force transmission of the prosthesis through the intertrochan- teric region, the medial portions of the femoral neck cortex, and the lateral shaft cortex. Bone density measurement can reflect force transmission by detecting bone remodelling processes [32]. Migration Outcome analysis of migration showed an average distance under 3 mm, which implies no clinical relevance at a cut-off value of ≥ 3 mm. However, when the groups are considered individually, it was shown that the majority of migrations occurred within the first 6 months. Progressive or excessive migrations occurred only in isolated cases. Nevertheless, despite some migration values of over 3 mm and once up to 12 mm, no aseptic loosening requiring revision surgery was realized within the observation period of 36 months. Kutzner et al. mentioned axial migration of over 1.5 mm in 39% of cases after 24 months. Like the present study, they described a steady reduction of migration during the examination, which was considered stable after 2 years [33]. Jahnke et al. found comparable results for the Metha® prosthesis, that migration initially reached its maximum, and it remained constant over time [6]. De Waard et al. also observed secondary stabilization after initial migration, which indicated a minor risk of long-term aseptic loosen- ing [34]. Ries et al. described that the migration process occurred within the first weeks and months after full load- ing, as well as the osseointegration, which usually occurred within the 4th- to 12th-week post-op [35, 36]. In summary, the occurrence of migration within the first 6 postoperative months is not synonymous with implant loosening, but is an expression of bone associated remodelling processes. Learning curve Over the period from 2008 to 2014, a comparison of the groups revealed a learning curve effect for almost all defined parameters. According to current knowledge, this work on short-stem prosthetics is the first to track the learning suc- cess of a surgeon over 7 years and quantify it using radio- logical and clinical measurements. The fact that surgical experience and thus the decision patterns for implant size are subject to a learning process is also confirmed in other stud- ies [20, 21]. Both the total operating time and the pure inci- sion–suture time decrease with increasing operating year. This time saving may be due to the increasing experience of the surgeon and to the gaining knowledge of the entire surgi- cal team in using the then newly prosthetic system. Cheng et al. maintained that prolonged operating time increases the risk of infection at the surgical site [37]. Another aspect that has a negative impact on postoperative outcomes is intraoperative blood loss. In the present study, the average maximum blood loss of all groups was 690 ml, and intraop- erative blood transfusion was necessary in only one case in group 5 and two cases in group 6. When comparing groups 1–7, there is a decrease in intraoperative blood loss, which could be considered as a learning curve effect. Already 6 months postoperatively, all groups had an HHS score > 90 points. The improvement in HHS from pre- to postopera- tive was found to be statistically significant with p < 0.001. Similar results were also obtained by the author group Del Río-Arteaga et al. [38]. There was no significant difference between the individual groups within the postoperative con- trols in the present one. This may be due to the fact that the patients had already given a very positive assessment of the postoperative result, after which a further increase in this assessment was hardly possible. Conclusions The fact that revision surgery was not necessary for any of the patients of the considered cohort and in only five of the approx. 620 patients (as of 06/2020) who were subsequently treated with the same prosthesis speaks for the prosthesis and the operative expertise of the surgeon. In addition, this work was able to show that an increase in the expertise of 6596 Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery (2023) 143:6589–6597 1 3 the surgeon can be demonstrated using these radiological and clinical values as parameters. Funding Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. No funding was received. Declarations Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests. Ethical approval A positive vote of the local ethics committee is avail- able (file number: 209/18). Informed consent Not applicable. Retrospective study design. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri- bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta- tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/. References 1. Kirschner P (2005) Hüftendoprothetik. Chirurg 76(1):95–103. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s00104- 004- 0993-7. (quiz 104) 2. Roth A, Winzer T (2002) Periprothetische Osteopenie. In: Peters KM (ed) Knochenkrankheiten: Klinik Diagnose Therapie. Steinkopff, pp 105–107 3. Ridzwan M, Shuib S, Hassan AY, Shokri AA, Mohamad Ib MN (2007) Problem of stress shielding and improvement to the hip implant designs: a review. J Med Sci 7(3):460–467. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3923/ jms. 2007. 460. 467 4. Lombardi AV, Manocchio AG, Berend KR, Morris MJ, Adams JB (2018) Early experience with a short, tapered titanium porous plasma sprayed stem with updated design. Surg Technol Int 32:233–238 5. Jerosch J (2017) Kurzschaftendoprothesen an der Hüfte. Springer, Berlin 6. Jahnke A, Engl S, Seeger JB, Basad E, Rickert M, Ishaque BA (2015) Influences of fit and fill following hip arthroplasty using a cementless short-stem prosthesis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 135(11):1609–1614. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s00402- 015- 2302-y 7. van der Wal BCH, de Kramer BJ, Grimm B, Vencken W, Heyligers IC, Tonino AJ (2008) Femoral fit in ABG-II hip stems, influence on clinical outcome and bone remodeling: a radiographic study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 128(10):1065–1072. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s00402- 007- 0537-y 8. Augustin L, Boller S, Bobach C et al (2019) Development of periprosthetic bone mass density around the cementless Metha® short hip stem during three year follow up-a prospective radiologi- cal and clinical study. Int Orthop 43(9):2031–2037. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s00264- 018- 4126-1 9. Bieger R, Cakir B, Reichel H, Kappe T (2014) Erkennung von Hüftschaftsinterungen am Röntgenbild: Reliabilitätsuntersu- chung knöcherner und prothetischer Landmarken. Orthopade 43(10):934–939. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s00132- 014- 3014-7 10. Cordero-Ampuero J, Peñalver P, Antón R, Galán M, Cordero E (2013) Radiographic subsidence in asymptomatic patients after THR using the furlong active HAP stem. HSS J 9(2):161–165. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11420- 013- 9342-z 11. Grant TW, Lovro LR, Licini DJ, Warth LC, Ziemba-Davis M, Meneghini RM (2017) Cementless tapered wedge femoral stems decrease subsidence in obese patients compared to traditional fit- and-fill stems. J Arthroplasty 32(3):891–897. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. arth. 2016. 09. 023 12. Höhle P, Schröder SM, Pfeil J (2015) Comparison between preoperative digital planning and postoperative outcomes in 197 hip endoprosthesis cases using short stem prostheses. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 30(1):46–52. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. clinb iomech. 2014. 11. 005 13. Issa K, Pivec R, Wuestemann T, Tatevossian T, Nevelos J, Mont MA (2014) Radiographic fit and fill analysis of a new second- generation proximally coated cementless stem compared to its predicate design. J Arthroplasty 29(1):192–198. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. arth. 2013. 04. 029 14. Jahnke A, Engl S, Altmeyer C et al (2014) Changes of peripros- thetic bone density after a cementless short hip stem: a clinical and radiological analysis. Int Orthop 38(10):2045–2050. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s00264- 014- 2370-6 15 Kim YH, Kim VE (1993) Uncemented porous-coated anatomic total hip replacement. Results at six years in a consecutive series. J Bone Jt Surg Br. 75(1):6–13. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1302/ 0301- 620X. 75B1. 84210 36 16. Kutzner KP, Pfeil D, Kovacevic MP et al (2016) Radiographic alterations in short-stem total hip arthroplasty: a 2-year follow- up study of 216 cases. Hip Int 26(3):278–283. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5301/ hipint. 50003 39 17 Laine HJ, Pajamäki KJ, Moilanen T, Lehto MU (2001) The femoral canal fill of two different cementless stem designs. The accuracy of radiographs compared to computed tomographic scanning. Int Orthop 25(4):209–213. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s0026 40100 245 18. Martell JM, Pierson RH, Jacobs JJ, Rosenberg AG, Maley M, Galante JO (1993) Primary total hip reconstruction with a tita- nium fiber-coated prosthesis inserted without cement. J Bone Jt Surg Am 75(4):554–571. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2106/ 00004 623- 19930 4000- 00010 19. Saito J, Aslam N, Tokunaga K, Schemitsch EH, Waddell JP (2006) Bone remodeling is different in metaphyseal and diaphy- seal-fit uncemented hip stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res 451:128– 133. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1097/ 01. blo. 00002 24045. 63754. a3 20. Padilla JA, Anoushiravani AA, Feng JE, Schwarzkopf R, Slover J, Marwin S (2019) The learning curve following adop- tion of a novel short-stem prosthesis in total hip arthroplasty: implications on short-term patient outcomes. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 29(4):819–825. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s00590- 018- 2355-z 21. Loweg L, Kutzner KP, Trost M et al (2018) The learning curve in short-stem THA: influence of the surgeon‘s experience on intra- operative adjustments due to intraoperative radiography. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 28(2):269–275. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s00590- 017- 2049-y 22. Jerosch J (2017) Kurzschaft ist nicht gleich Kurzschaft. Orthop Rheuma 20(6):16–20. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s15002- 017- 1245-9 23. Kutzner KP, Freitag T, Donner S, Kovacevic MP, Bieger R (2017) Outcome of extensive varus and valgus stem alignment in short- stem THA: clinical and radiological analysis using EBRA-FCA. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://doi.org/10.1007/s00104-004-0993-7 https://doi.org/10.3923/jms.2007.460.467 https://doi.org/10.3923/jms.2007.460.467 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-015-2302-y https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-007-0537-y https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-007-0537-y https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-4126-1 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-4126-1 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00132-014-3014-7 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11420-013-9342-z https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2016.09.023 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2016.09.023 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2014.11.005 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2014.11.005 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2013.04.029 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2013.04.029 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-014-2370-6 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-014-2370-6 https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.75B1.8421036 https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.75B1.8421036 https://doi.org/10.5301/hipint.5000339 https://doi.org/10.5301/hipint.5000339 https://doi.org/10.1007/s002640100245 https://doi.org/10.1007/s002640100245 https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-199304000-00010 https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-199304000-00010 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000224045.63754.a3 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-018-2355-z https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-018-2355-z https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-017-2049-y https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-017-2049-y https://doi.org/10.1007/s15002-017-1245-9 6597Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery (2023) 143:6589–6597 1 3 Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 137(3):431–439. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s00402- 017- 2640-z 24 Kutzner KP, Freitag T, Bieger R (2022) Defining “undersizing” in short-stem total hip arthroplasty: the importance of sufficient contact with the lateral femoral cortex. Hip Int 32(2):160–165. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 11207 00020 940276. (Epub 2020 Jul 9. PMID: 32644828; PMCID: PMC8978469) 25. Luger M, Stiftinger J, Allerstorfer J, Hochgatterer R, Gotterbarm T, Pisecky L (2022) High varus stem alignment in short-stem total hip arthroplasty: a risk for reconstruction of femoro-acetabular offset, leg length discrepancy and stem undersizing? Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 142(10):2935–2944. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s00402- 021- 04176-5. (Epub 2021 Sep 23) 26. Nishioka ST, Andrews SM, Mathews K, Nakasone CK (2022) Varus malalignment of short femoral stem not associated with post-hip arthroplasty fracture. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 142(11):3533–3538. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s00402- 021- 04244- w. (Epub 2021 Nov 30) 27. Jahnke A, Wiesmair A-K, Fonseca Ulloa CA, Ahmed GA, Rick- ert M, Ishaque BA (2020) Outcome of short- to medium-term migration analysis of a cementless short stem total hip arthro- plasty using EBRA-FCA: a radiological and clinical study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 140(2):247–253. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s00402- 019- 03315-3 28. Kamada S, Naito M, Nakamura Y, Kiyama T (2011) Hip abductor muscle strength after total hip arthroplasty with short stems. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 131(12):1723–1729. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s00402- 011- 1350-1 29 Engh CA, Bobyn JD, Glassman AH (1987) Porous-coated hip replacement. The factors governing bone ingrowth, stress shield- ing, and clinical results. J Bone Jt Surg Br 69(1):45–55. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1302/ 0301- 620X. 69B1. 38187 32 30 Engh CA, Massin P (1989) Cementless total hip arthroplasty using the anatomic medullary locking stem. Results using a survivorship analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 249:141–158 31. Falez F, Casella F, Panegrossi G, Favetti F, Barresi C (2008) Per- spectives on metaphyseal conservative stems. J Orthop Traumatol 9(1):49–54. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10195- 008- 0105-4. (Epub 2008 Mar 13) 32. Belfrage O, Weber E, Sundberg M, Flivik G (2022) Preserved periprosthetic bone stock at 5 years post-operatively with uncemented short hip stem in both collared and collarless ver- sion. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 142(11):3489–3496. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s00402- 021- 04225-z. (Epub 2021 Nov 29) 33. Kutzner KP, Kovacevic MP, Freitag T, Fuchs A, Reichel H, Bieger R (2016) Influence of patient-related characteristics on early migration in calcar-guided short-stem total hip arthroplasty: a 2-year migration analysis using EBRA-FCA. J Orthop Surg Res 11:29. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1186/ s13018- 016- 0363-4 34. de Waard S, Sierevelt IN, Jonker R, Hoornenborg D, van der Vis HM, Kerkhoffs GMMJ, Haverkamp D (2021) The migration pat- tern and initial stability of the Optimys short stem in total hip arthroplasty: a prospective 2-year follow-up study of 33 patients with RSA. Hip Int 31(4):507–515. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 11207 00020 901844. (Epub 2020 Jan 23 PMID: 31971010) 35. Floerkemeier T, Budde S, Lewinski GV, Windhagen H, HurSchler C, Schwarze M (2020) Greater early migration of a short-stem total hip arthroplasty is not associated with an increased risk of osseointegration failure: 5th-year results from a prospective RSA study with 39 patients, a follow-up study. Acta Orthop 91(3):266– 271. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 17453 674. 2020. 17327 49 36. Ries C, Boese CK, Dietrich F, Miehlke W, Heisel C (2019) Femo- ral stem subsidence in cementless total hip arthroplasty: a retro- spective single-centre study. Int Orthop 43(2):307–314. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s00264- 018- 4020-x 37. Cheng H, Chen BP-H, Soleas IM, Ferko NC, Cameron CG, Hinoul P (2017) Prolonged operative duration increases risk of surgi- cal site infections: a systematic review. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 18(6):722–735. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1089/ sur. 2017. 089 38. Del Río-Arteaga M, Payo-Ollero J, Vallejo M, Serrano-Toledano D, García-Benítez B, Ribera J (2022) Short neck-preserving femoral stem for total hip arthroplasty: medium-term results of a 68-case series. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 142(8):2093–2101. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s00402- 021- 04069-7. (Epub 2021 Jul 24) Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-017-2640-z https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-017-2640-z https://doi.org/10.1177/1120700020940276 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-021-04176-5 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-021-04176-5 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-021-04244-w https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-021-04244-w https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-019-03315-3 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-019-03315-3 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-011-1350-1 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-011-1350-1 https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.69B1.3818732 https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.69B1.3818732 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10195-008-0105-4 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-021-04225-z https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-021-04225-z https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-016-0363-4 https://doi.org/10.1177/1120700020901844 https://doi.org/10.1177/1120700020901844 https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2020.1732749 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-4020-x https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-4020-x https://doi.org/10.1089/sur.2017.089 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-021-04069-7 Retrospective clinical and X-ray-based outcome analysis of a short-stem hip arthroplasty taking into account the operative learning curve over 7 years in the 3-year control course Abstract Introduction Materials and methods Results Conclusions Introduction Material and methods Target parameters Radiological evaluation Stem migration Fit&fill ratio Statistics Results Collective Centrum-collum-diaphyseal angle Fit&fill ratio Migration Clinical parameters Correlation of the measurement parameters Discussion Centrum-collum-diaphyseal angle Fit&fill ratio Migration Learning curve Conclusions References