Outcome with the MS-30 Stem

Morscher, E; Clauss, Martin; Grappiolo, Guido

doi:10.1007/3-540-28924-0_31

Cited by 5 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These results are generally consistent with the clinical success of a flanged, collarless, double-tapered cemented stem in both highly polished and matte surface finishes (Berli et al, 2005;Morscher et al, 2005;Morscher and Wirz, 2002). Collectively, these laboratory results and clinical observations suggest that dorsal flanges are more important to the fixation of cemented doubletapered femoral components than surface finish.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

“…Clinical observations suggest that, contrary to findings for nonflanged stems, for double-tapered stems with proximal flanges, surface finish does not appear to affect clinical outcome (Berli et al, 2005;Morscher et al, 2005). In a multi-center study of a double-tapered stem with flanges, either highly polished or with a matte finish, the risk of aseptic loosening at 6-10 years was less than 1%, regardless of surface finish .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 62%

“…The matte-finished Marburg, implanted between 1984 and 1987 in 220 hips, had a 95.4% survival rate at 13 years; whereas, the grit-blasted version, implanted between 1991and 1994 in 343 hips, had a 76.7% survival rate at 8 years. The stem with the longest survival, while relatively more polished than the other, was in fact matte, the same finish that was detrimental to the clinical performance of the Exeter, but had no reported clinical effect in terms of revisions or radiographic outcome for the MS-30 after 10 years (Berli et al, 2005;Howie et al, 1998;Ling, 1992;Middleton et al, 1998;Morscher et al, 2005;Morscher and Wirz, 2002). It stands to reason that the MS-30 and the Marburg flanges played a role in fixation leading to enhanced outcome; however, till date, no other study has examined the interactions between surface finish and flanges on fixation.…”

Section: Direction Of Motionmentioning

confidence: 93%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The influence of proximal stem geometry and surface finish on the fixation of a double-tapered cemented femoral stem

Sangiorgio

Longjohn

Dorr

et al. 2011

Journal of Biomechanics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 62%

Section: Direction Of Motionmentioning

confidence: 93%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The influence of proximal stem geometry and surface finish on the fixation of a double-tapered cemented femoral stem

Sangiorgio

Longjohn

Dorr

et al. 2011

Journal of Biomechanics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…During that period, the revision rates were no higher than they are today (Morscher et al. 2005). In fact, many of the stems implanted during these years had a matte surface, thus giving the MS-30 even greater characteristics of a shape-closed stem.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is a hollow centralizer necessary when using a polished, tapered, cemented femoral stem?

Weber

Olsson²,

Kesteris

et al. 2017

Acta Orthopaedica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and purposeA tapered, polished and collarless stem is normally equipped with a hollow centralizer to prevent the stem from becoming end-bearing in the cement as the stem subsides. In a randomized clinical trial, we evaluated such a stem (MS-30), which was initially introduced with a solid centralizer but was later recommended to be fitted with a hollow centralizer. We hypothesized that while the stem would sink more, it would become rotationally stable and have less retroversion with a hollow centralizer than with a solid centralizer.Patients and methodsWe randomized 60 patients with primary hip arthritis to receive either a hollow centralizer or a solid centralizer with the stem. The effect was evaluated over a 10-year follow-up period with repeated RSA examinations, conventional radiographs, and clinical follow-ups using the WOMAC and SF-12 questionnaires.ResultsAt 10-year follow-up, the group with hollow centralizers had subsided more than the group with solid centralizers (1.99 mm (hollow) as opposed to 0.57 mm (solid); p < 0.001). However, rotation was similar at 10-year follow-up (mean retroversion 1.34° (hollow) and 1.30° (solid)). Both groups showed excellent 10-year results, with similar clinical outcome, and none of the stems were radiographically loose or had been revised.InterpretationAs expected, there was more subsidence in the group with hollow centralizers, and with similar magnitude to that reported in earlier RSA studies on conceptually similar prostheses. Interestingly, there was no difference in the rotational behavior of the prostheses. This stem type appears to have a design that, regardless of the type of centralizer and the possibility of subsidence, withstands the rotational forces it is subjected to very well. This study does not support the need for a hollow centralizer for these types of stems.

show abstract

“…This may also explain why the same design of stem but with a smoother surface finish performs better than its rougher equivalent, even if they are of the composite-beam design (Table I). 48,[67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76] Geometry of the stem. Several features of the shape of the stem influence the in vivo behaviour of femoral components, including the overall shape (straight or anatomical), the cross-section (oval or square), the presence of a collar, the shape of the tip of the stem, the length of the stem and whether the edges are rounded to a greater or lesser degree.…”

Section: Stem Philosophiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The design features of cemented femoral hip implants

Scheerlinck

Casteleyn

2006

The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British volume

129

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We undertook a review of the literature relating to the two basic stem designs in use in cemented hip replacement, namely loaded tapers or force-closed femoral stems, and the composite beam or shape-closed designs. The associated stem fixation theory as understood from in vitro studies and finite element modelling were examined with reference to the survivorship results for each of the concepts of fixation. It is clear that both design principles are capable of producing successful long-term results, providing that their specific requirements of stem metallurgy, shape and surface finish, preparation of the bone and handling of the cement are observed.

show abstract

Outcome with the MS-30 Stem

Cited by 5 publications

References 28 publications

The influence of proximal stem geometry and surface finish on the fixation of a double-tapered cemented femoral stem

The influence of proximal stem geometry and surface finish on the fixation of a double-tapered cemented femoral stem

Is a hollow centralizer necessary when using a polished, tapered, cemented femoral stem?

The design features of cemented femoral hip implants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About