Zimmer® Trabecular Metal™ Primary Hip Prosthesis

Surgical Issues

Distinctive technology and features identified through a collaborative design process result in an optimal implant design that addresses common surgeon concerns. 1, 2

 Initial and Long-term Fixation

Initial fixation with the Trabecular Metal Primary Hip Prosthesis is attributed to the design of its proximal  geometry as well as the use of Trabecular Metal material.  1, 2, 3

  • 23.5-Degree Neck Resection Angle
  • Proximal Press-fit
  • Scratch-fit of Trabecular Metal Material

Long-term fixation is more rapidly achieved through the in-growth potential of Trabecular Metal material.

  • In-growth Potential of Trabecular Metal Material

Rotational Stability

Rotational stability is achieved through the combination of the proximal geometry and
attributes of the Trabecular Metal material. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

  • 23.5-Degree Neck Resection Angle
  • Proximal Press-fit
  • Scratch-fit of Trabecular Metal Material
  • In-growth Potential of Trabecular Metal Material

Stress Shielding

The increased proximal taper angle, A/P reliefs, and rapid fixation promote proximal load distribution to minimize the potential for stress shielding. 2, 3

  • 14-Degree Proximal Taper
  • In-growth Potential of Trabecular Metal Material
  • Anterior / Posterior Reliefs

Subsidence

The proximal geometry of the stem, coupled with the scratch fit and in-growth characteristics of the Trabecular Metal material, helps resist stem subsidence. 1, 2, 3

  • 14-Degree Proximal Taper
  • Scratch-fit of Trabecular Metal Material
  • In-growth Potential of Trabecular Metal Material

Related Links

Overview
Design Rationale
Product Brochure
Surgical Technique

References

  1. Bobyn JD, Hacking SA, Chan SP, et al. Characterization of new porous tantalum biomaterial for reconstructive orthopaedics. Scientific Exhibition: 66th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons; Anaheim, CA., 1999.

  2. O’Keefe TJ, Cohen RC, Averill RA, et al. Design principles of proximal locking cementless stem. Proc Australian Orthopaedic Assoc, Brisbane, Australia, 1999.

  3. O’Keefe TJ, Lewis, RJ, Unger AS. Proxilock femoral hip stem – two- to five-year results. Poster 046, The 70th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, New Orleans, LA, 2003.

  4. Goldberg VM, Stevenson S, Feighan J, et al. Biology of grit blasted titanium alloy implants. Clin Orthop. 1995; 319:122-129.

  5. Hacking SA, Bobyn JD, Toh K-K, et al. The osseous response to corundum blasted implant surfaces in a canine total hip arthroplasty model. Clin Orthop. 1999;364:240-253.