Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 22, 2026

Individualized Stem-positioning in Calcar-guided Short-stem Total Hip Arthroplasty
Published on: February 27, 2018
Geometric analysis and clinical outcome of two cemented stems for primary total hip replacement with and without
Marcel Haversath1, Christine Wendelborn1, Marcus Jäger1
1Department of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, University of Duisburg-Essen, Hufelandstr. 55, 45147, Essen, Germany.
Introduction:
Restoration of the physiological biomechanical principles of the hip is crucial in total hip replacement. The aim of this study was to compare an arthroplasty system with different offset options (a: Exeter®) with a dual-modular stem (b: Profemur Xm®).
Materials And Methods:
A local and an inertial coordinate system were used to assist the description of the components' assembly in the prosthesis. A resection line of the femoral head in standard position was added to the arthroplasties and geometric parameters were measured. The outcomes of 93 patients were clinically evaluated (a: n = 50, b: n = 43). Preoperative planning was compared to postoperative radiographs (femoral offset, leg-length), and clinical scores (HHS, WOMAC, total range of motion) were assessed preoperatively, and then 1 and 2 years after surgery.
Results:
The Exeter® offers an offset range from 32.1 to 56.9 mm and the Profemur Xm® a range from 29.3 to 55.3 mm. The leg-length variability of the Profemur Xm® has a range of 25.9 mm, the Exeter® a range of 13.7 mm. The Profemur Xm® offers more possible combinations of offset and leg-length reconstruction. The neck-stem angles of the Exeter® range from 125.2° to 126.3°, of the Profemur Xm® from 127.2° to 142.6°. There was no statistically significant difference in clinical outcome and radiological parameters.
Conclusions:
We conclude that both stems offer a wide range of options for anatomical reconstruction of the hip resulting in similarly good clinical results. The Profemur Xm® stem has advantages for the reconstruction of hips that deviate from standard anatomy but has the drawback of additional corrosive wear at the stem/neck interface.
More Related Videos
07:45The Use of Mixed Reality in Custom-Made Revision Hip Arthroplasty: A First Case Report
Published on: August 4, 2022
09:51The Transition to an Anterior-Based Muscle Sparing Approach Improves Early Postoperative Function but is Associated with a Learning Curve
Published on: September 7, 2022