Femoral revision hip arthroplasty: a comparison of two stem designs

Minimum 2-Year Outcomes of a Modern Monoblock Titanium Fluted Tapered Revision Stem for Complex Primary and Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Modular titanium fluted tapered (TFT) stems have demonstrated excellent clinical success for femoral revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) surgery. This study reports the short-term outcomes of a novel modern monoblock TFT stem used for revision and complex primary THA with a minimum of 2 years of follow-up.

METHODS

We identified 126 patients who received a single monoblock TFT stem: 26 patients for complex THA (failed fracture fixation) and 100 patients for revision THA. The reasons for revision THA included 40 for previous periprosthetic joint infection, 42 for aseptic loosening, 9 for trunnionosis, and 9 for periprosthetic fractures. The Paprosky grading for femoral bone loss at the time of surgery and the measured subsidence of femoral stems at 3-month follow-up were determined. We evaluated the number and indications for reoperations.

RESULTS

The mean time from surgery was 3.9 years (range, 2.0 to 6.9). A paired t-test analysis showed significant improvement from preoperative versus postoperative clinical outcome scores (P < .001) for Harris Hip Score (38.76 ± 15.24 versus 83.42 ± 15.38), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (45.6 ± 19.0 versus 69.9 ± 21.3), Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey Physical component (31.7 ± 8.1 versus 37.8 ± 11.3), and Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey Mental component (48.2 ± 12.2 versus 51.6 ± 12.5). The Paprosky grading for femoral bone loss was Grade 1 (3.9%), Grade 2 (35.7%), Grade 3A (47.6%), Grade 3B (11.1%), and Grade 4 (1.6%) cases. There were 18 reoperations (14.7%), with 13 for periprosthetic joint infection (7 treated with implant retention and 6 treated with a 2-stage revision), 4 for instability, and 1 for acetabular aseptic loosening. There were no aseptic failures of the stem.

CONCLUSIONS

This novel modern monoblock TFT stem provided reliable femoral fixation and has increasingly supplanted the use of modular TFT stems for complex primary and revision surgery in our institution.

What's New in Periprosthetic Femur Fractures?

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic femur fracture (PFF) is one of the most common indications for reoperation following total hip arthroplasty.

METHODS/RESULTS

This article provides a review of a symposium on PFF that was presented at the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons 2023 annual meeting, including an overview of the Vancouver classification and its implications on treatment and subsequent complications, an updated approach to the management of intraoperative fractures, and finally, contemporary strategies for both osteosynthesis as well as revision arthroplasty for PFFs.

CONCLUSION

As the incidence of PPF continues to increase, arthroplasty and trauma surgeons must be prepared to address this challenging complication with a contemporary understanding of the treatment options and their outcomes.

Conservative femoral revision using short cementless stems with a tapered rectangular shape for selected Paprosky II-IV bone defects: an average seven-year follow-up

BACKGROUND

The use of long stems for severe femoral bone defects is suggested by many scholars, but it is associated with further bone loss, intraoperative fracture, increased surgical trauma, and complications. With better bone retention, simple and quick surgical procedures, and minimal complications, the short cementless stems with a tapered rectangular shape may be an alternative for femoral revision. This study aimed to evaluate the results of this type of stem in treating selected Paprosky II-IV bone defects.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 73 patients (76 hips involved) who underwent conservative femoral revision using the short cementless stems with a tapered rectangular shape between January 2012 and December 2020. The preoperative femoral bone defects were identified as follows: 54 cases of type II, 11 cases of type IIIA, 7 cases of type IIIB, and 4 cases of type IV. Indications for revision included aseptic loosening (76.3%) and prosthetic joint infection (23.7%). Six cementless stems with a tapered rectangular shape from three companies were used in all patients. Among them, SLR-Plus, SL-Plus MIA, and Corail stems were employed in most patients (40.8%, 23.7%, and 17.1%, respectively). The average length of these stems measured 171.7 mm (SD 27 mm; 122-215 mm). Radiographic results, Harris hip scores (HHS), complications, and survivorship were analyzed. The follow-up lasted for 7 years on average (range 3-11 years).

RESULTS

The subsidence was observed in three hips (3.9%), and all stems achieved stable bone ingrowth. Proximal femoral bone restoration in the residual osteolytic area was found in 67 hips (88.2%), constant defects in nine hips (11.8%), and increasing defects in 0 cases. There was no evidence of stem fractures and stem loosening in this series. The mean HHS significantly improved from 32 (range 15-50) preoperatively to 82 (range 68-94) at the last follow-up (t = - 36.297, P < 0.001). Five hips developed prosthesis-related complications, including three infection and two dislocation cases. The mean 5- and 10-year revision-free survivorships for any revision or removal of an implant and reoperation for any reason were 94.6% and 93.3%, respectively. Both mean 5- and 10-year revision-free survivorships for aseptic femoral loosening were 100%.

CONCLUSION

Conservative femoral revision using short cementless stems with a tapered rectangular shape can provide favorable radiographic outcomes, joint function, and mid-term survivorship with minimal complications. Of note, a sclerotic proximal femoral bone shell with continued and intact structure and enough support strength is the indication for using these stems.

Management of Severe Bone Defects in Femoral Revision following Total Hip Arthroplasty

Treatment of femoral bone defects continues to be a challenge in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA); therefore, meticulous preoperative evaluation of patients and surgical planning are required. This review provides a concise synopsis of the etiology, classification, treatment strategy, and prosthesis selection in relation to femoral bone loss in revision THA. A search of literature was conducted for identification of research articles related to classification of bone loss, management of femoral revision, and comparison of different types of stems. Findings of a thorough review of the included articles were as follows: (1) the Paprosky classification system is used most often when defining femoral bone loss, (2) a primary-length fully coated monoblock femoral component is recommended for treatment of types I or II bone defects, (3) use of an extensively porouscoated stem and a modular fluted tapered stem is recommended for management of types III or IV bone defects, and (4) use of an impaction grafting technique is another option for improvement of bone stock, and allograft prosthesis composite and proximal femoral replacement can be applied by experienced surgeons, in selected cases, as a final salvage solution. Stems with a tapered design are gradually replacing components with a cylindrical design as the first choice for femoral revision; however, further confirmation regarding the advantages and disadvantages of modular and nonmodular stems will be required through conduct of higher-level comparative studies.

Incidence and Predictors of Subsidence Using Modular, Tapered, Fluted Titanium Femoral Stems in Aseptic Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Tapered, fluted titanium (TFT) femoral stems have become the gold standard in revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA). However, there is a paucity of data on TFT stem subsidence rates following aseptic rTHA. Subsidence can lead to instability, mechanical failure, leg-length discrepancy, and may require revision surgery. This study evaluated the incidences and predictors of TFT subsidence in aseptic rTHA.

METHODS

A total of 102 TFT femoral stems of 4 designs were retrospectively reviewed. Stem subsidence was measured on digital radiographs taken immediately after surgery and at standard clinical follow-up. Patient characteristics, risk factors for subsidence, revision etiologies, and implant characteristics were recorded. Patient-reported outcome measures were also evaluated for a subset of cases.

RESULTS

Overall, 12% of stems subsided >1 cm, and subsidence was minimal (<3 mm) in ≥64% of cases. From immediate postoperative to 1-month radiographic follow-up, 79% of stems subsided a mean of 2.9 mm (range, 0.1 to 12 mm). Beyond 1 month, subsidence was minimal for ≥77% of cases. In multivariate analyses, women and less femoral implant canal fill were associated with greater subsidence (P ≤ .034). The TFT stem design was not associated with early subsidence (P = .816). There were no modular junction fractures. There were 2 fractures and 2 subsidence-related revisions for aseptic loosening that occurred postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

The amount of subsidence in TFT stems was low and was detectable in the early (less than 1 year) postoperative period. Maximizing TFT stem fill within the femoral canal appears to reduce the risk of subsidence without increasing femoral fracture rates and should be the goal with implantation of these devices.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV-Case Series, No Control Group.

Long-term outcomes of revision total hip arthroplasty with the Zimmer Modular Revision hip system

Aims

There are limited long-term studies reporting on outcomes of the Zimmer Modular Revision (ZMR) stem, and concerns remain regarding failure. Our primary aim was to determine long-term survival free from all-cause revision and stem-related failure for this modular revision stem in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). Secondary aims included evaluating radiological and functional outcomes.

Methods

We retrospectively identified all patients in our institutional database who underwent revision THA using the ZMR system from January 2000 to December 2007. We included 106 patients (108 hips) with a mean follow-up of 14.5 years (2.3 to 22.3). Mean patient age was 69.2 years (37.0 to 89.4), and 51.9% were female (n = 55). Indications for index revision included aseptic loosening (73.1%), infection (16.7%), fracture (9.3%), and stem fracture (0.9%). Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to determine the all-cause and stem-related failure revision-free survival. At most recent follow-up, Oxford Hip Scores (OHS) were collected, and radiological stem stability was determined using the Engh classification.

Results

A total of 17 hips (15.7%) underwent re-revision of any component. Indications for re-revision were stem failure (35.3%; n = 6), infection (29.4%; n = 5), instability (29.4%; n = 5), and acetabular aseptic loosening (5.9%; n = 1). The five- and 15-year all-cause survival was 89.7% (95% confidence interval (CI) 86.7 to 92.7) and 83.3% (95% CI 79.6 to 87.0), respectively. There were six re-revisions (5.6%) for stem failure; five for stem fracture and one for aseptic loosening. The five- and 15-year survival free from stem-related failure was 97.2% (95% CI 95.6 to 98.8) and 94.0% (95% CI 91.6 to 96.4), respectively. At final follow-up, the mean OHS was 36.9 (8.0 to 48.0) and 95.7% (n = 66) of surviving modular revision stems were well-fixed in available radiographs.

Conclusion

Femoral revision with the ZMR offers satisfactory long-term all-cause revision-free survival, good survival free of stem-related failure, and favourable clinical outcomes. Stem fracture was the most common reason for stem-related failure and occurred both early and late. This highlights the importance of both early and long-term surveillance for stem-related failure.

Implant breakage and revision factors for modular fluted tapered stems in revision total hip arthroplasty

PURPOSE

Modular stems in revision total hip arthroplasties allow diaphyseal fixation and optimal restoration of the architecture of the proximal femur. Several studies report metaphyseal implant breakage having a negative impact on survivorship. The aim of the study was to evaluate the outcome of an uncemented modular fluted tapered stem (MFT) in revision surgery.

METHODS

In a retrospective study, 316 patients who had revision surgery using the same design of MFT implant (Modular Revision Stem [MRS], Lima Corporate, Italy) between 2012 and 2017 were identified. Patients were male in 51% of cases and mean age was 74 years. Indications were 110 periprosthetic fractures, 98 periprosthetic joint infection, 97 aseptic loosening, 10 instability and 1 other cause. Survivorship, complications, clinical and radiographic outcomes, were assessed. Mean follow-up was 5 years.

RESULTS

There was no implant breakage. At 5-year follow-up, the survivorship, free from revision for aseptic loosening and free of revision for any reason were 96% and 87%, respectively. At last follow-up (8 years), these figures were 92% and 71%, respectively. 31 implants were revised. The risk of revision for any cause was higher for extreme length metaphyseal implants, hazard ratio was 3.7 (95% CI, 1.82-7.52). A mean stem subsidence of 9 mm was noted in 37 cases; 4 were revised for aseptic loosening. The Harris Hip Score at final follow-up was 82.

CONCLUSIONS

At 5-year follow-up, the MFT implant showed a good survivorship and outcomes with no specific complications. Unlike literature reports, no specific complications occurred with this design. Stem junction positioning and therefore metaphyseal length may be key to optimise long-term survivorship. However, a longer follow-up is needed as implant breakage is more often seen after long implantation times.

Treatment of femoral bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty: a clinical practice review

Patient and implant selection is essential to optimize outcome. Femoral bone loss classifications such as the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Gross, and Paprosky classifications permit surgeons to systematically manage bone stock deficiencies and guide implant selection. Here we provide a comprehensive report on the pitfalls and management of this reconstructive challenge. Preoperative planning remains vital to the treatment of femoral bone loss in revision hip arthroplasty and the authors believe it is essential and should include the entire femur. This commonly includes imaging for bone loss such as Judet views or computed tomography scan and must include the entire femur though additional radiographs such as Judet views apply more for acetabular bone loss as opposed to femoral bone loss. All patients should have pre-operative work up to exclude infection. If any of these results area elevated, an aspirate and sampling is required to guide microbiological management. Classically with regards femoral revision surgery, uncemented fixation has proven to give the best outcomes but surgeons must remain flexible and use cemented fixation when necessary. Adequate proximal bone stock permits the use of implants used in primary joint surgery. Implants with proximal modularity can be used in cases where bone stock allows for superb proximal bone support. The vast majority of femoral revisions have inadequate proximal bone stock, thus distally fixed stems should be used and have been shown to provide both axial and rotational stability provided there is an intact isthmus. Taper fluted stems can provide good outcomes even in cases of major bone loss. However, with severe bony loss, impaction grating or the use of a megaprotsthesis is sometimes necessary and is down to surgeon choice and preference. This article has been written as a guide for management and summarises the best evidence available.

Clinical and radiographic outcomes of long monoblock, hydroxyapatite-coated stem in revision hip arthroplasty with extended trochanteric osteotomy: a multicenter study

BACKGROUND

The distally fixed stem used in revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) with extended trochanteric osteotomy (ETO) is subject to periprosthetic fracture, stem subsidence, and stress shielding. The prospective multicentric study aimed to assess the clinical and radiographic outcomes, and complications of using the Corail revision stem in rTHA with ETO.

METHODS

Sixty-four patients undergoing rTHA with ETO using the Corail revision stem between 2019 and 2020 were enrolled in the study. We performed a postoperative follow-up of the patient and obtained radiographs and Harris hip scores (HHSs). These results were used to analyze ETO union, Engh scores, bone remodeling, stem stability and hip function.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up duration was 34 months (range 23-41). Sixty-two patients who underwent ETOs achieved complete healing at the final follow-up. Fifty-nine hips had bony ingrowth from the osteotomy fragment to the stem without radiolucent lines. The postoperative Engh score was 21.3 ± 3.59 (range 15.5-27.0). Forty-three hips had regeneration in the proximal femur. Two patients had transient thigh pain postoperatively. The postoperative HHS improved from 40.7 ± 16.67 (range 0-67) preoperatively to 82.1 ± 6.83 (range 73-93).

CONCLUSION

Corail revision stems are a viable and reliable option in rTHA with ETO. This stem had excellent clinical and radiographic outcomes, resulting in a high rate of ETO union and stem survival. The revision stem enabled restoration of proximal bone stock in femurs with prerevision bone defects, which were prepared for the next revision operation. Level of evidence Level IIb, Prospective self-control study.

Is Retention of the Acetabular Component at Revision Surgery a Long-Term Solution?

Background

Acetabular retention in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) may be advantageous, yet long-term survival data is limited. Thus, we investigated long-term survivorship of retained acetabular components in revision THA with analysis of rerevision rate, instability risk, and clinical outcomes.

Methods

We reviewed 98 hips with polyethylene wear and/or osteolysis that were revised with retained acetabular components. Acetabular inclination and anteversion were measured from prerevision radiographs. A retrospective chart review was performed, collecting outcomes of interest including Harris hip score, instability events, and rerevision surgery. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to calculate the risk of revision over time. Predictors of survival including acetabular component position were analyzed by multiple logistic regression.

Results

Average follow-up was 13 years (range, 5-24). Survivorship rates at 5, 10, 15, and 20 years were 89.7%, 81.6%, 70.8%, and 63.8%, respectively. There was improvement in average Harris hip score (61 to 76, P < .0001). There was a 9% rate of dislocation, and 6 hips (6%) were rerevised for recurrent instability. Overall, there were 23 (23%) rerevisions at an average of 6.1 years with the most common reasons being instability (6%) and aseptic loosening (6%). Use of conventional polyethylene was the only identified independent predictor of rerevision (P = .025).

Conclusions

Retention of a well-fixed acetabular component in revision THA provides acceptable long-term outcomes with a 15-year survivorship of 71%. Instability and aseptic loosening were the most common reasons for rerevision. Surgeons may consider retaining the acetabular component at revision surgery if the implant is well-fixed and well-positioned.

Modular versus monoblock stem in revision total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is estimated to grow in the following decades with a consequent increase of THA revisions (rTHA). This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare modular and monoblock stem in rTHA surgery, focusing on clinical and radiological outcomes and complication rates.

Methods

A literature search was performed using the following search strategy: ((Modular stem) OR (monolithic stem)) AND (hip review) on PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (OS) compared clinical and radiological outcomes, and complication rates for monoblock and modular revision femoral stem were included. The risk of bias was assessed through the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) score. The Review Manager (RevMan) software was used for the meta-analysis. The rate of complications was assessed using odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results

The authors included 11 OS and one RCT with 3,671 participants (mean age: 68.4 years old). The mean follow-up was 46.9 months. There was no prevalence of subsidence for one type of stem. Mean subsidence was from 0.92 to 10 mm for modular stem and from 1 to 15 mm for monoblock stem. Postoperative Harris Hip Score (HHS) showed better results with modular stems without statistical significance [mean difference (MD) =1.32; 95% CI: -1.62 to 4.27; P=0.38]. No statistically significant difference was found for dislocations (OR =2.48; 95% CI: 0.67 to 9.14; P=0.17), infections (OR =1.07; 95% CI: 0.51 to 2.23; P=0.86), intraoperative fractures (OR =1.62; 95% CI: 0.42 to 6.21; P=0.48), and postoperative fractures (OR =1.60; 95% CI: 0.55 to 4.64; P=0.39).

Conclusions

Modular and monoblock stems show comparable and satisfactory clinical and radiological outcomes for rTHA. Both stems are valid and effective options for managing femoral bone deficit in hip revision surgery. The main limitation of this study is the small number and low quality of enclosed studies that compared the two stems. Moreover, the modular stem is usually used for more complex cases with lower quality femoral bone stock.

Efficacy and safety of modular versus monoblock stems in revision total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Both modular and monoblock tapered fluted titanium (TFT) stems are increasingly being used for revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA). However, the differences between the two designs in clinical outcomes and complications are not yet clear. Here, we intend to compare the efficacy and safety of modular versus monoblock TFT stems in rTHA.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched to include studies comparing modular and monoblock implants in rTHA. Data on the survivorship of stems, postoperative hip function, and complications were extracted following inclusion criteria. Inverse variance and Mantel-Haenszel methods in Review Manager (version 5.3 from Cochrane Collaboration) were used to evaluate differences between the two groups.

RESULTS

Ten studies with a total of 2188 hips (1430 modular and 758 monoblock stems) were finally included. The main reason for the revision was aseptic loosening. Paprosky type III was the most common type in both groups. Both stems showed similar re-revision rates (modular vs monoblock: 10.3% vs 9.5%, P = 0.80) and Harris Hip Scores (WMD = 0.43, P = 0.46) for hip function. The intraoperative fracture rate was 11.6% and 5.0% (P = 0.0004) for modular and monoblock stems, respectively. The rate of subsidence > 10 mm was significantly higher in the monoblock group (4.5% vs 1.0%, P = 0.003). The application of extended trochanteric osteotomy was more popular in monoblock stems (22.7% vs 17.5%, P = 0.003). The incidence of postoperative complications such as periprosthetic femoral fracture and dislocation was similar between both stems.

CONCLUSIONS

No significant difference was found between modular and monoblock tapered stems as regards postoperative hip function, re-revision rates, and complications. Severe subsidence was more frequent in monoblock stems while modular ones were at higher risk of intraoperative fracture.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, systematic review of randomized control and non-randomized studies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

We registered our study in the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42020213642).

Revision total hip arthroplasty for periprosthetic fracture: epidemiology, outcomes, and factors associated with success

The aging population and the increasing number of patients with primary total hip arthroplasties (THA) has equated to an increased incidence of periprosthetic fractures (PPF) of the hip. These injuries are a significant source of patient morbidity and mortality, placing a financial burden on healthcare systems worldwide. As the volume of PPF is expected to along with the growing volume of primary and revision THA, it is important to understand the outcomes and factors associated with treatment success. The choice of procedure is in large part guided by the help of the Vancouver Classification system, which is a valid and reproducible system that classifies fractures based on several factors including site of fracture, implant stability and bone stock. PPFs account for approximately 18% of revision THA (rTHA) procedures. rTHA for PPFs is commonly indicated in Vancouver B2 and B3 fractures, to bypass a lack of metaphyseal support with diaphyseal fixation. Such revisions are technically challenging and typically require urgent treatment, with inherent difficulties in patient optimization, leading to a notable rate of post-operative complications, re-revision and mortality. This article reviews epidemiology, health economics and risk factors for PPFs. It additionally reviews outcomes associated with rTHA for PPFs including peri-operative complications, indications for re-operation, rates of re-operation and rates of mortality. Finally, it aims to identify evidence-based factors that have been associated with successful management including modifiable patient-related factors, uncemented vs. cemented stems, stem design (porous coated stems vs. fluted tapered stems), modularity, dislocation and its impact on outcomes following rTHA and strategies for managing bone loss.

No Difference In Subsidence Between Modern Monoblock And Modular Titanium Fluted Tapered Femoral Stems

BACKGROUND

Subsidence remains a concern when utilizing tapered fluted titanium (TFT) femoral stems and may lead to leg length discrepancy, impingement, instability and failure to obtain osseointegration. This study aims to compare stem subsidence across three modern TFT stems. Our secondary aim was to investigate the influence of bicortical contact or 'scratch fit' on subsidence, as well as the role of intraoperative imaging in maximizing bicortical contact and preventing stem subsidence.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 271 hip arthroplasties utilizing modern TFT stems at a single institution was performed. Three stem designs were included in the analysis: one monoblock TFT stem (n=91) and two modular TFT stems (n=90; n=90). Patient demographics, Paprosky femoral bone loss classification, bicortical contact, utilization of intra-operative imaging, and stem subsidence (comparison of initial post-operative radiograph to the latest follow up radiograph - minimum three months) were recorded.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference in overall subsidence (P=0.191) or the incidence of subsidence >5 millimeters between stems (P= 0.126). Subgroup analysis based on femoral bone loss grading showed no difference in subsidence between stems. Increased bicortical contact was associated with reduced subsidence (P=0.004). Intra-operative imaging was used in 46.5% (126 of 271) of cases; this was not correlated with bicortical contact (P=0.673) or subsidence (P=0.521).

CONCLUSION

All three modern TFT stems were highly successful and associated with low rates of subsidence, regardless of modular or monoblock design. Surgeons should select the stem that they feel is most clinically appropriate.

Breakage of Tapered Junctions of Modular Stems in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty—High Incidence in a Consecutive Series of a Single Institution

Background: Modularity in revision THA (RTHA) has become accepted during the last three decades. Nevertheless, specific risks of modularity of current revision devices such as breakage of taper junctions occur during follow-up. Data reporting failure rates are predominantly given by the manufacturers but independent data acquisition is missing so far. Questions/Purposes: 1. What time-related risk of breakage of taper junction between neck and body of an established modular revision device can be expected in a consecutive single institutional series and a mid-term follow-up? 2. Are there specific factors influencing breakage in this cohort? Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed of a consecutive series of 89 cases after femoral revision using a tapered modular revision stem. Mean follow-up period was 7.1 (range: 3.0–13.7) years. Breakage of stem as failure criteria of the implant was investigated with a Kaplan–Meier analysis. Results: Breakage of taper junctions occurred in four patients during follow-up showing a time-depending implant survival of 94.2 (95% CI: 88.6–100%) after 13.7 years. Implant survival of stems with lateralized necks of 87.4 (95% CI: 75.6–100%) after 13.7 years was significantly lower compared to the standard offset variant with 100% after 13.5 years (log rank test p = 0.0283). Chi square test also revealed a significantly higher risk of breakage of lateralized necks compared to standard offset pieces (p = 0.0141). Three of four patients were obese with a mean BMI of 37.9 kg/m2. Grade of obesity (grade 1 or higher) had significant influence on risk of breakage. Survival of the implant was significantly lower in obese patients with at least grade 1 obesity compared to patients with a BMI < 30 kg/m2 (82.9 (95% CI: 64.9–100%) after 11.6 years vs. 98.4 (95% CI: 95.3–100%) after 13.7 years; log-rank p = 0.0327). Conclusions: Cumulative risk for failure of taper junctions was high in this consecutive single institutional cohort and may further increase during follow-up. As independent data acquisition in registries is missing, failure rate may be higher than reported data of the manufacturers. The use of lateralized offset necks in obese patients of at least grade 1 obesity showed a significantly higher risk of breakage. The use of monobloc revision devices may be an option, but randomized control trials are currently missing to establish standardized treatment protocols considering individual risks for both monobloc and/or modular implants.

Periprosthetic fracture management of the proximal femur

The most common periprosthetic fractures occur around the hip. The most widely used classification is the Vancouver classification, and management requires careful planning and skill in both arthroplasty and fracture surgery. This article presents an overview of the diagnosis, classification, and management of periprosthetic fractures of the proximal femur. This work represents a summary review from Latin American Society Members of the International Orthopaedic Trauma Association.

Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of a Monoblock Fluted Titanium-Tapered Stem for Paprosky IIIa, IIIb, and IV Femoral Bone Defects

BACKGROUND

Modern fluted titanium-tapered stems (FTTS) have been increasingly utilized to achieve primary stability in conversion and revision total hip arthroplasty with major femoral bone loss. This study sought to determine the radiographic and clinical outcomes of a monoblock FTTS in patients who had major femoral bone loss.

METHODS

A multicenter retrospective observational study of all total hip arthroplasty patients who received a monoblock FTTS who had up to 5-year radiographic follow-up was conducted. Only patients with femoral Paprosky classifications of IIIa, IIIb, and IV were included. Eighty-one monoblock FTTS were examined. Median clinical follow-up was 29 months (range, 18 to 58). Stem subsidence and loosening were assessed on most recent radiographs. All-cause revisions and stem survivals were assessed.

RESULTS

Median subsidence was 1.4 millimeters (mm) (range, 0 to 15.0). Sixteen (23.9%) and 3 (4.5%) stems had subsidence greater than 5 and 10 mm, respectively. All stems not acutely revised appeared stable, without evidence of loosening, at latest follow-up. Ten hips (12.3%) required reoperations. Of these, only 5 (6.2%) stems were removed; 4 due to periprosthetic joint infection and 1 for surgical exposure during acetabular revision. Kaplan-Meier analyses yielded an all-cause stem survivorship of 95.1% at 2-years and 87.1% at 4-years. Stem survivorships excluding septic causes was 98.8% at both 2 and 4 years.

CONCLUSION

Monoblock FTTS in complex femoral reconstruction cases showed encouraging clinical and radiographic results in patients who had severe femoral bone loss at median 29 months follow-up.

Subsidence of monoblock and modular titanium fluted tapered stems in revision hip arthroplasty: A retrospective multicentre comparison study

Background

Tapered, fluted, titanium (TFT) stems have shown good clinical outcomes in revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA), however concerns exist regarding early subsidence. This study compares subsidence between a modern monoblock 3-degree and a modular 2-degree TFT stem in rTHA.

Methods

A retrospective, international multicentre comparative study was conducted including 64 rTHA in 63 patients. A monoblock TFT stem was used in 37 cases and a modular TFT stem was used in 27 cases. Patient demographics, Paprosky femoral bone loss classification, bicortical contact and stem subsidence were recorded at minimum four week follow up.

Results

There was no statistically significant difference in overall subsidence (p = 0.318) or the rate of subsidence >10 mm between stems. Mean subsidence was 2.13 mm in the monoblock group and 3.15 mm in the modular group. Two stems subsided >10 mm: one in each group. There was no difference in bicortical contact between groups (p = 0.98). No re-revisions were performed.

Conclusions

We found no difference in subsidence between the two stems. Surgeons may consider the use of monoblock stems in rTHA as they have comparably low rates of subsidence and eliminate the small but potentially catastrophic risk of implant fracture at modular junctions associated with modular stems.

Clinical, functional and radiographic outcomes after revision total hip arthroplasty with tapered fluted modular or non-modular stems: a systematic review

PURPOSE

The aim of the study was to systematically evaluate clinical outcomes of tapered fluted stems, either monoblock or modular, in revision total hip arthroplasty.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science and Cochrane databases were systematically searched by 2 researchers. Clinical studies reporting primarily on survival and re-revision rates, and secondarily on subsidence, dislocation, intraoperative fractures, periprosthetic fractures and infection were included. 2 investigators assessed the quality of the studies.

RESULTS

46 studies were included in this review, reporting on 4601 stem revisions. The pooled re-revision rate was 5.1% and long-term survival ranged from 75% to 98.5%. No differences were observed between monoblock and modular stems regarding re-revision rate, dislocation rate, periprosthetic fracture rate or infection rates. Monoblock stems exhibited more subsidence and modular stems displayed more intraoperative fractures.

CONCLUSIONS

Satisfactory results can be obtained with the use of tapered fluted end-bearing stems. Monoblock stems offer the same clinical results as modular stems.

The survivorship of revision total hip replacement with severe proximal bone deficiency using a modular taper fluted prosthesis

Contemporary uncemented femoral revision hip systems have become commonly used over the past decade and have enabled the reconstruction of leg length, offset and anteversion as independent variables through the use of modular junctions. Modular junction failures between the proximal body and distal stem have been described with revision systems, although this is rare. We sought to identify the survivorship of one revision system in a salvage arthroplasty scenario where no host bone support of the modular junction was present. From a series of 136 patients, 15 patients (16 hips) were identified without host bone support of the modular junction with a mean radiological follow up of over 6 years (76 months +/- 35 months). There have been no cases of prosthetic fracture over the follow-up duration, with two revisions performed for reasons of aseptic loosening and infection. The mean BMI of the study group was 30.2 with 78% of the cohort classified as overweight or obese. It is well recognised that, host bone support of the modular junction is preferable, however the satisfactory outcomes over the midterm in these complex patients suggests that modular revision systems remain an option.

Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty with Primary Stem or Full-Porous-Coated Long Stem for Aseptic Femoral Component Loosening: A Matched-Pair Study

Background

Revision total hip arthroplasty (RTHA) for loosening the femoral stem is a technical challenge. Distally fixed, full-porous-coated long stems are widely accepted as the standard selection for these revisions. However, the success of primary stems in RTHA is not well known.

Methods

This study enrolled 24 patients with aseptic loosening of the femoral stem who underwent RTHA using primary stems. Another 72 patients with aseptic loosening who underwent RTHA using full-porous-coated long stems were matched in terms of operation date, proximal femoral bone stock (Paprosky classification), sex, and age. The primary and secondary outcomes of failure were the need for revision for any reason and the radiographic change in the stem respectively.

Results

In the primary stem group, one patient had a periprosthetic fracture and received a second RTHA 2 years after the previous one. The primary outcome’s 5-and 10-year survival rates were both 95.8%. For the matched comparison group, one patient had an immediate periprosthetic fracture of the femoral shaft requiring further open reduction internal fixation surgery. Another patient had a full-porous-coated long stem breakage 6 years postoperatively, which required a second RTHA. The primary outcome’s 5-and 10-year survival rates were 98.6% and 97.2%, respectively.

Conclusion

Primary stems can achieve non-inferior clinical success compared to a full-porous-coated long stem for aseptic stem loosening RTHA in patients with adequate proximal femoral bone stock.

Different Designs of Proximal Femoral Stems for Total Hip Arthroplasty: Mid-Term Clinical and Patient-Reported Functional Outcomes

INTRODUCTION

A comprehensive comparison of the performance of different femoral stem geometries in total hip arthroplasty (THA) is yet to be described. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate objective and subjective outcome measures in primary THA with different femoral implant styles.

METHODS

Stems were classified into the following five classes: cemented, conical, fit and fill, modular, and wedge. The objective outcomes of interest were the length of inpatient hospital stay (LOS), 90-day readmission rate, one-year revision rate, and two-year mortality rate. Preoperative and postoperative patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), including hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score (HOOS) - physical function shortform (HOOS-PS), patient-reported outcomes measurement information system physical function short form 10a (PROMIS PF-10a), and patient-reported outcomes measurement information system - short form - mental 10a (PROMIS M-10a) were recorded and compared between different classes.

RESULTS

Patients with a wedge stem had a significantly lower LOS versus every other stem group, while patients with a cemented stem had the highest LOS, approximately twofold that of the wedge stem group. Accounting for potential confounders, the conical and fit and fill groups had a significantly higher two-year mortality rate than the wedge stem group. Fit and fill stems conferred a slight risk of revision THA at one-year compared to wedge stems. There was no significant difference in the rates of failure to achieve the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the PROMs.

CONCLUSION

Placement of wedge stems resulted in a significantly lower LOS compared to every other stem class and a lower mortality rate than the conical, fit and fill, and modular stems. As for the 90-day readmission, one-year revision, and the rates of failure to achieve the MCID for general or hip-specific PROMs, stem design had no meaningful effect.

Modular or Monolithic Tapered Fluted Prostheses for Periprosthetic Fractures: Which One Could Work for You?

Periprosthetic fracture around a femoral component is a potentially devastating complication after total hip arthroplasty. Surgical treatment is often technically demanding and requires a thorough understanding of fracture care and revision joint reconstruction. Advancements in femoral component designs for revision total hip arthroplasty have improved management of this challenging complication. It is important for surgeons to understand which femoral component design might best suit their needs. We present an overview of revision total hip arthroplasty in the setting of periprosthetic fracture, focusing on comparing the 2 most popular femoral component revision models, the modular and monolithic tapered fluted conical prostheses.

The different failure modes of the connecting elements of the modular hip arthroplasty revision stem Revitan

INTRODUCTION

Fracture of the femoral stem is the cause of ~1 % of revisions after total hip arthroplasty. The risk increases intrinsically with modularity, whereby modularity is particularly useful in revision arthroplasty. We present 7 cases of failure of a specific modular, tapered, fluted, titanium alloy Revitan stem and analyse the different failure modes.

METHODS

Retrospective review of all Revitan stems revised at our institutions due to implant failure and analysis of clinical presentation, diagnostic workup, and failure mode. The retrieved components were analyzed by optical and scanning electron microscopy.

RESULTS

A total of 7 cases were included. There was a significant time lag between symptom onset and correct diagnosis. Conventional radiographs and low-dose CT scans (CT scout imaging) were decisive for diagnosis. All failures occurred at the level of the connection between the proximal component and the distal part of the stem. Three different failure modes were identified: loosening of the proximal component, fatigue fracture of the connection pin, and distal loosening of the connection pin. No alterations of the microstructure or deviation from manufacturing specifications regarding dimensions were observed. Failure was caused by mechanical overload.

CONCLUSION

Conventional radiographs are the mainstay in identifying failed modular stems. Repeated radiographs and low-dose CT scans may be helpful additions. No single modification of the connection will address all possible failure modes. Modularity of revision stems offers advantages up until insertion of the definitive stem. Monoblock definitive stems might overcome the potential mechanical weaknesses of modularity and should be considered in relatively young, heavy and active patients.

A Contemporary Classification System of Femoral Bone Loss in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Current femoral bone loss classification systems in revision total hip arthroplasty were created at a time when the predominant reconstructive methods used cylindrical porous-coated cobalt-chrome stems. As these stems have largely been replaced by fluted-tapered titanium stems, the ability of these classification systems to help guide implant selection is limited. The purpose of this study was to describe a novel classification system based on contemporary reconstructive techniques.

METHODS

We reviewed the charts of all patients who underwent femoral component revision at our institution from 2007 through 2019. Preoperative images were reviewed, and FBL was rated according to the Paprosky classification and compared to ratings using our institution's NCS. Rates of reoperation at the time of most recent follow-up were determined and compared.

RESULTS

Four-hundred and forty-two femoral revisions in 330 patients with a mean follow-up duration of 2.7 years were identified. Femoral type according to Paprosky and NCS were Paprosky I (36, 8.1%), II (61, 13.8%), IIIA (180, 40.7%), IIIB (116, 26.2%), and IV (49 11.1%) and NCS 1 (35, 7.9%), 2 (364, 82.4%), 3 (8, 1.8%), 4 (27, 6.1%), and 5 (8, 1.8%). Of the 353 nonstaged rTHAs, there were 42 cases requiring unplanned reoperation (11.9%), including infection (18, 5.1%), instability (10, 2.8%), femoral loosening (5, 1.4%), and various other causes (9, 2.5%). The NCS was more predictive of reoperation than the Paprosky classification (Fisher's exact test, P = .008 vs P = ns, respectively).

CONCLUSION

We present a novel femoral classification system that can help guide contemporary implant selection.

Early clinical and radiological outcomes of a new tapered fluted titanium monobloc revision stem in hip arthroplasty

PURPOSE

A new fluted, titanium, monobloc stem with a three degree taper has been designed in an attempt to overcome the challenges associated with femoral reconstruction in the setting of extensive bone loss. The aim of this study was to report its early clinical and radiographic outcomes.

METHODS

This is a retrospective review of prospectively collected data carried out at a single institution between Jan 2017 and Dec 2019. Forty-three femoral revisions were performed using a new tapered, fluted, titanium, monobloc (TFTM) revision stem. Complications, clinical and radiographic data were obtained from medical records and a locally maintained database. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the Oxford Hip Score (OHS) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). All post-operative radiographs were analysed for subsidence, osteolysis and femoral cortical bone remodelling.

RESULTS

Mean follow-up was 24 months (range 8-42 months). Subsidence of 1.2 mm was noted in one patient. No cases of clinically significant subsidence (> 10 mm) were observed. At final follow-up, a statistically significant improvement was noted in functional outcome scores. The mean OHS preoperatively and at final follow-up were 24 (SD 13) and 42 (SD15). p = 0.04 mean difference 18 (95% CI 15-22). The mean WOMAC scores preoperatively and at final follow-up were 62 (SD23) and 88 (SD7) respectively (p < 0.001, mean difference 26; 95% CI 21-34). No stem fractures were noted within the follow-up period.

CONCLUSION

Positive early clinical and radiological outcomes have been observed with this tapered, fluted, titanium, monobloc stem. Based on these results, this implant may be considered as a viable option in the majority of uncemented femoral revisions.

Femoral Stem Fracture in Hip Revision Arthroplasty: A Systematic Literature Review of the Real-World Evidence

Background Total hip arthroplasty (THA) presents as an excellent treatment for the osteoarthritic hip, demonstrating good survival rates. However, aseptic loosening and infection are the main causes of operative revision. The methods used in revision surgery are non-modular or modular THA implants. In addition to the abovementioned revision reasons for THA, this treatment could be associated with the possibility of femoral stem fracture, especially in the modular system. The topic of material failure has been focused on in the public media. The question arises as to how such media reports correlate with the published literature. The observed mentioned number of cases concerning a femoral stem fracture vary between one single case and up to 18.5% within a clinical study, thus presenting an inhomogeneous data situation with a large span. The specific aim of this systematic review is to establish facts and clarify the number of unforeseen events of a femoral stem fracture based on peer review articles and registry data. This clarification is important to us, as these media reports have led to uncertainty among patients.

Methods A systematic review was performed in accordance with the PRISMA statement. Peer review articles in English and German, presenting original articles, meta-analyses, or case reports, were searched from the turn of the millennium up to December 2019. Only articles that reported a femoral stem component fracture, with content of clinical data as well as register data, were included. Relevant papers published after the defined research time frame were taken into account within the discussion.

Results In total, 218 fractures of a femoral stem (141 primary and 77 revision THA) component could be identified within the selected literature. Most cases of a femoral stem fracture occurred in the modular THA implants compared to the non-modular stems. Regarding revision THA, in summary, 77 implants, presenting 23 non-modular and 54 modular implants, failed by means of femoral stem fracture. A review of 11 National Joint Registries shows a revision rate between 0.04 and 0.05% in only 2 registers according to the specific subject of a femoral stem fracture. For the remaining 9 registers, however, detailed information is lacking and only nonspecific information such as a generic “implant failure” or “other reason” (which can cover a multitude of causes) is supplied.

Conclusion A femoral stem fracture presents a devastating complication for the patient, the surgeon as well as for the manufacturer of the implant. Modular THA implants play an increasingly valuable role concerning restoration of individual anatomy in modern THA revision surgery, especially within complex cases. Regarding revision procedures, data suggests a lower risk of femoral stem fracture for modular implants compared to primary procedures, while the risk of fracture for non-modular implants seems to increase during revision. Ultimately, it cannot be proven whether this is actually applicable, since the absolute number of implanted prosthesis systems is not known. Various implant-, patient-, and surgeon-related factors may lead to these reported femoral stem fractures. However, this systematic review suggests that this is, in general, a rare complication.

Medium Term Radiographic and Clinical Outcomes Using a Modular Tapered Hip Revision Implant

Background

The rate of revision hip arthroplasty surgery is rising. Surgeons must use implants with proven outcomes to help overcome the technical challenges faced during revision surgery. However, outcome studies using these implants are limited. The aim of this study is to investigate the radiographic and clinical outcomes of the Stryker Restoration stem, the most commonly used hip revision stem in the United Kingdom (UK).

Methods

A retrospective review of a single surgeon case series was performed. Immediate postoperative radiographs were analyzed for offset and leg length discrepancy. Radiographic evidence of subsidence was assessed using follow-up radiographs. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was applied using explantation and reoperation as endpoints. Patient-reported outcomes were measured using the Oxford Hip Score and EQ-5D-5L.

Results

One hundred ninety-eight cases were identified. Mean follow-up duration was 51.8 months (range: 24-121). Stem survival during this period was 98%. Reoperation for any reason was 13%. Mean subsidence was 4.18 mm. Analysis of variance testing showed no difference in mean subsidence between revision indications. Mean offset and leg length discrepancies were measured at 4.5 mm and 4.3 mm, respectively. The mean Oxford Hip Score for participants was 27.6.

Conclusions

This series demonstrates excellent implant survival, with radiographic parameters for reconstruction and subsidence levels comparable to those in the existing literature. The tapered modular hip revision stem provides surgeons with the intraoperative flexibility to overcome some of the anatomical difficulties encountered during revision surgery; this is reflected in the radiographic and clinical outcomes of the cohort in this study.

The Role of Stem Modularity in the Failure of Internal Fixation in Geriatric Patients With Distally Fixed Hemiarthroplasty

The aim of this study was to compare the radiological and clinical outcomes of the same make of modular and monoblock tapered fluted stems in patients with failure of internal fixation following osteoporotic intertrochanteric fracture. This retrospective, comparative study included patients older than 65 years who underwent hemiarthroplasty with a modular or monoblock distally fixed fluted stem and had failed treatment with proximal femoral nailing between 2012 and 2017, with at least a 2-year follow-up period. Radiographic and clinical evaluations of the groups were compared. The modular group comprised 22 males and 18 females with a mean age of 85.05±7.1 years, and the monoblock group comprised 27 males and 17 females with a mean age of 83.27±7.0 years. No significant difference was observed between the groups regarding the preoperative and final-visit Harris Hip Score and Parker and Palmer Mobility Score values (P>.05 for both). More patients showed osseous restoration in the monoblock group, but not to a significant level. The groups were similar regarding mortality rates. Stem length was greater in the modular group, but the proximal femoral part and stem size were similar in the groups (P<.05 for all). Canal filling at levels A, B, and C was negatively correlated (weak) with the proximal femoral bone restoration (P<.001 for all). Canal filling at level B was negatively correlated (weak) with the stress shielding of the femur (P<.05 for all). When comparing the modularity of the stem by minimizing the variations of both prostheses, such as brand and geometric design, there was no significant difference in either clinical or radiological evaluations. [Orthopedics. 2021;44(1):e119-e124.].

Revision total hip arthroplasty in patients with femoral bone loss using tapered rectangular femoral stem: a minimum 10 years' follow-up

BACKGROUND

Revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) remains a significant challenge when there is severe femoral bone loss. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical and radiographic outcomes of revision THA in patients with femoral bone loss treated with Zweymüller SLR-Plus stem.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 82 patients who underwent revision THA using tapered rectangular femoral stem between 1997 and 2007 was undertaken. Of the 82 patients, 9 patients were lost to follow-up and were excluded from the study. The most common reason for revision was aseptic loosening (92%), periprosthetic femur fracture (5%), and infection (3%). Bone loss was categorised preoperatively according to the Paprosky classification. The mean clinical follow-up was 14 years (range 10-19 years). Their mean age at the time of index surgery was 54.7 ± 15.3 (range 30-82) years.

RESULTS

The mean Harris Hip Score was significantly improved at final follow-up (68.1 ±10.3) compared with that before the revision surgery (30.4 ± 7.7) (p < 0.0001). Of the 75 stems, 69 (92%) stems were radiographically stable at the last evaluation. Among the 69 stems, 64 hips (85%) had radiographic evidence of bone ingrowth and 5 (5%) had stable fibrous fixation of the stem. Among the 7 hips that were re-revised, 5 hips were re-revised for aseptic loosening, whereas 2 were re-revised for an infection. Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis, with removal of the stem for any cause as the endpoint, revealed that the 15-year rate of survival of the components was 90% (95% CI, 0.83-0.97).

CONCLUSION

Revision THA in patients with proximal femoral bone loss using Zweymüller SLR-Plus stem led to a high rate of osseointegration of the stem and good clinical results at long-term follow-up.

Comparison of cylindrical and tapered stem designs for femoral revision hip arthroplasty

Background

Both cylindrical and tapered stems are commonly used in revision total hip arthroplasty. However, whether the geometry of prosthesis stem has an effect on patient prognosis is unclear. We assume that the tapered stem results in better clinical outcome than the cylindrical stem.

Methods

A multicenter review of 120 femoral revisions with Paprosky I, II, and III defects using cobalt chrome cylindrical stem (54 hips) or titanium tapered stem (66 hips) was performed with an average follow-up of 6 years. Demographic data were comparable between groups.

Results

No significant group differences were found in surgery time, bleeding volume, postoperative Harris Hip Score, level of overall satisfaction, and 8-year cumulative survival. However, intraoperative fractures occurred significantly less in the tapered group (4.5%) than in the cylindrical group (14.8%), and stem subsidence was significantly less in the tapered group (2.17 mm) than in the cylindrical group (4.17 mm). A higher ratio of bone repair and lower bone loss were observed in the tapered group compared with the cylindrical group. The postoperative thigh pain rate was higher in the cylindrical group (12.9%) than in the tapered group (4.5%).

Conclusion

Both cylindrical stem and tapered stem can achieve satisfactory mid-term clinical results in revision total hip arthroplasty. The tapered stem has better bone restoration of proximal femur, lower incidence of intraoperative fractures, and lower postoperative thigh pain rate compared with the cylindrical stem.

Is There a Benefit to Modularity for Femoral Revisions When Using a Splined, Tapered Titanium Stem?

BACKGROUND

Proposed benefits of modularity for femoral revisions in total hip arthroplasty (THA) include more precise biomechanical restoration and improved stability, but this has not been proven with use of a splined, tapered design. This study's purpose is to compare (1) complication rates, (2) functional outcomes, and (3) radiographic measures of subsidence, offset, and leg length discrepancy with the use of modular vs monoblock splined, tapered titanium stems in revision THA.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 145 femoral revisions with minimum 2-year follow-up (mean, 5.12 years; range, 2-17.3 years). Patients receiving a modular (67) or monoblock (78) splined, tapered titanium stem for femoral revision were included.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences in rates of reoperation (22.3% vs 17.9%; P = .66), intraoperative fracture (9.0% vs 3.8%; P = .30), postoperative fracture (3.0% vs 1.3%; P = .47), dislocation (11.9% vs 5.1%; P = .23), or aseptic loosening (4.5% vs 6.4%; P = .73) between the modular and monoblock cohorts, respectively. There were similar results regarding subsidence >5 mm (10.4% vs 12.8%; P = .22), LLD >1 cm (35.8% vs 38.5%; P = .74), restoration of hip offset (-5.88 ± 10.1 mm vs -5.07 ± 12.1 mm; P = .67), and Harris Hip Score (70.7 ± 17.9 vs 73.9 ± 19.7; P = .36) between groups. Multivariate regression showed no differences in complications (P = .44) or reoperations (P = .20) between groups.

CONCLUSION

Modular and monoblock splined, tapered titanium stems demonstrated comparable complication rates, functional outcomes, and radiographic parameters for femoral revisions. However, a limited number of patients with grade IIIB or IV femoral bone loss received a monoblock stem. Future investigations are required to determine whether modularity is beneficial for more complex femoral defects.

Survivorship and Radiological Analysis of a Monoblock, Hydroxyapatite-Coated Titanium Stem in Revision Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

We evaluated the survivorship, incidence of complications, radiological subsidence, proximal stress shielding, and patient-reported outcomes of a conservative, monoblock, hydroxyapatite-coated femoral stem.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study reports on 254 revision hip arthroplasties between January 2006 and June 2016. The mean age of patients was 71 years. The mean length of follow-up was 62 months (range 12-152).

RESULTS

There were 13 stem re-revisions: infection (4), periprosthetic fracture (4), aseptic stem loosening (3), stem fracture (1), and extended trochanteric osteotomy nonunion (1). Kaplan-Meier aseptic stem survivorship was 97.33% (confidence interval 94-100) at 6 years. There were 29 intraoperative fractures. There were 6 cases of subsidence greater than 10 mm; however, none required revision. Ninety-six percent of cases showed no proximal stress shielding. Thigh pain was reported in 3% of cases.

CONCLUSION

This study confirms that this stem provides good survivorship at 6 years, acceptable complication rates, adequate proximal bone loading, low incidences of thigh pain, and reliable clinical performance in revision hip arthroplasty.

KEY MESSAGE

A monoblock, fully hydroxyapatite-coated titanium stem is reliable in revision arthroplasty with mild-moderate femur deficiencies.

Bone restoration after revision hip arthroplasty with femoral bone defects using extensively porous-coated stems with cortical strut allografts

Background

Stress shielding and bone loss of the femur are of great concern after revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) with extensively porous-coated stems, especially in a femur with already bone loss. The femoral bone remodeling patterns after revision THA with femoral bone defects using extensively porous-coated stems with cortical strut allografts remain unclear.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 47 patients who underwent revision THA using extensively porous-coated stems combined with cortical strut allografts and 75 patients without allografts. The minimum follow-up was 2 years. Femoral bone remodeling signs, including stress shielding, bone restoration in bone defect area, distal cortical hypertrophy, and femoral width, were compared between patients with and without cortical strut allografts. Clinical outcomes were also compared between two groups.

Results

Patients with cortical strut allografts showed less severe stress shielding (P = 0.01) than patients without allografts. Patients with allografts had more osseous restoration in bone defect area than patients without allografts (63.8% vs 30.7%, P < 0.001). Femoral width was significantly higher in femur with allografts than in femur without allografts at the immediate postoperative stage and latest follow-up (both P < 0.001). The hip function score, re-revision rate, and complications were comparable between two groups.

Conclusion

The application of cortical strut allografts can decrease the severity of stress shielding, augment osseous restoration in bone defect area and improve femoral bone stock after revision THA using extensively porous-coated stems.

Mechanical failure of 113 uncemented modular revision femoral components

Aims

We evaluated a large database with mechanical failure of a single uncemented modular femoral component, used in revision hip arthroplasty, as the end point and compared them to a control group treated with the same implant. Patient- and implant-specific risk factors for implant failure were analyzed.

Methods

All cases of a fractured uncemented modular revision femoral component from one manufacturer until April 2017 were identified and the total number of implants sold until April 2017 was used to calculate the fracture rate. The manufacturer provided data on patient demographics, time to failure, and implant details for all notified fractured devices. Patient- and implant-specific risk factors were evaluated using a logistic regression model with multiple imputations and compared to data from a previously published reference group, where no fractures had been observed. The results of a retrieval analysis of the fractured implants, performed by the manufacturer, were available for evaluation.

Results

There were 113 recorded cases with fracture at the modular junction, resulting in a calculated fracture rate of 0.30% (113/37,600). The fracture rate of the implant without signs of improper use was 0.11% (41/37,600). In 79% (89/113) of cases with a failed implant, either a lateralized (high offset) neck segment, an extralong head, or the combination of both were used. Logistic regression analysis revealed male sex, high body mass index (BMI), straight component design, and small neck segments were significant risk factors for failure. Investigation of the implants (76/113) showed at least one sign of improper use in 72 cases.

Conclusion

Implant failure at the modular junction is associated with patient- and implant-specific risk factors as well as technical errors during implantation. Whenever possible, the use of short and lateralized neck segments should be avoided with this revision system. Implantation instructions and contraindications need to be adhered to and respected. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(5):573–579.

Minimum 8-year follow-up of revision THA with severe femoral bone defects using extensively porous-coated stems and cortical strut allografts

Background

Revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) with severe femoral bone defects remains a major challenge. The purpose of this study is to report the minimum 8-year clinical and radiographic results of revision THA with severe femoral bone defects treated with extensively porous-coated stems and cortical strut allografts.

Methods

We retrospectively identified 44 patients diagnosed with Paprosky type III and IV femoral bone defects between January 2006 and July 2011. The exclusion criteria were patients not eligible for surgery, revised with extensively porous-coated stems alone, lost to follow-up and deceased. A total of 31 patients treated with extensively porous-coated stems and cortical strut allografts were finally included in this study. The degree of femoral bone defects was categorized as Paprosky type IIIA in 19 patients, type IIIB in 9 patients and type IV in 3 patients. The mean duration of follow-up was 11.0 ± 1.5 (range, 8.1–13.5) years.

Results

The mean Harris Hip Score improved significantly from 43.4 ± 10.5 points to 85.2 ± 6.6 points (P < 0.001). Similarly, WOMAC and SF-12 scores also significantly improved. Twenty-eight stems achieved stable bone ingrowth, two stems showed stable fibrous ingrowth, and one stem was radiologically unstable. Complete union and bridging between cortical strut allografts and host bone was achieved in all 31 patients. The femoral width was augmented with cortical strut allografts after revision surgery (an increase of 10.5 ± 0.5 mm) and showed a slight decrease of 2.5 ± 4.8 mm after the 10-year follow-up. Using re-revision for any reason as an endpoint, the Kaplan-Meier cumulative survival rate of the stem was 96.2% (95% confidence interval, 75.7–99.5%) at 10 years.

Conclusion

Our data demonstrate that the use of extensively porous-coated stems combined with cortical strut allografts in revision THA with Paprosky type III and IV femoral bone defects can provide satisfactory clinical and radiographic outcomes with a minimum follow-up of 8 years.

Radiographic and Clinical Outcomes of Modular Tapered Fluted Stems for Femoral Revision for Paprosky III and IV Femoral Defects or Vancouver B2 and B3 Femoral Fractures

BACKGROUND

Extensive femoral bone loss poses a challenge in revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA). Many techniques have been developed to address this problem including fully porous cylindrical stems, impaction bone grafting, and cementation of long stems, which have had varied success. Modular tapered fluted femoral stems (MTFS) show favorable results. We sought to determine the minimum 2-year radiographic and clinical performance of MTFS in rTHA in a population with extensive proximal femoral bone loss.

METHODS

Our clinical database was queried retrospectively for all patients who underwent rTHA with an MTFS. We included patients with Paprosky 3 and 4 femoral bone loss and patients with Vancouver B2 and B3 periprosthetic femur fractures. Patients without 2-year follow-up were invited to return to clinic for X-ray evaluation and to complete clinical questionnaires. We assessed distance of stem subsidence and presence of stem fixation on final X-ray. We recorded all-cause revision and survival of the stem at final follow-up.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty-nine patients were available for follow-up. Average follow-up time was 3.75 years. One hundred twenty-two stems (95%) remained in place at final follow-up. Median subsidence was 1.4 mm (range 0-21). All-cause revision rate was 16.3% (21 patients). Of the hips revised, 10 were for instability, 6 for infection, 1 for aseptic loosening, and 1 for periprosthetic femur fracture. Three were revised for other reasons. The stem was revised in 7 patients (5.4%), and the most common reason for stem revision was infection (5 patients). The other 2 stems were revised for aseptic loosening in a Paprosky 4 femur and periprosthetic femur fracture. Survival of tapered modular fluted stems with aseptic failure as an endpoint was 98.4%. The mean Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Joint Replacement score at final follow-up was 73, and mean Veterans Rand 12 item health survey physical and mental scores were 32.8 and 52.2, respectively.

CONCLUSION

In patients with Paprosky 3, 4 femoral defects or Vancouver type B2, B3 fractures, modular tapered fluted stems for femoral revision show excellent outcomes at minimum 2-year follow-up.

Short-term outcomes with the REDAPT monolithic, tapered, fluted, grit-blasted, forged titanium revision femoral stem

AIMS

Although good clinical outcomes have been reported for monolithic tapered, fluted, titanium stems (TFTS), early results showed high rates of subsidence. Advances in stem design may mitigate these concerns. This study reports on the use of a current monolithic TFTS for a variety of indications.

METHODS

A multi-institutional retrospective study of all consecutive total hip arthroplasty (THA) and revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) patients who received the monolithic TFTS was conducted. Surgery was performed by eight fellowship-trained arthroplasty surgeons at four institutions. A total of 157 hips in 153 patients at a mean follow-up of 11.6 months (SD7.8) were included. Mean patient age at the time of surgery was 67.4 years (SD 13.3) and mean body mass index (BMI) was 28.9 kg/m² (SD 6.5). Outcomes included intraoperative complications, one-year all-cause re-revisions, and subsidence at postoperative time intervals (two weeks, six weeks, six months, nine months, and one year).

RESULTS

There were eight intraoperative complications (4.9%), six of which were intraoperative fractures; none occurred during stem insertion. Six hips (3.7%) underwent re-revision within one year; only one procedure involved removal of the prosthesis due to infection. Mean total subsidence at latest follow-up was 1.64 mm (SD 2.47). Overall, 17 of 144 stems (11.8%) on which measurements could be performed had >5 mm of subsidence, and 3/144 (2.1%) had >10 mm of subsidence within one year. A univariate regression analysis found that additional subsidence after three months was minimal. A multivariate regression analysis found that subsidence was not significantly associated with periprosthetic fracture as an indication for surgery, the presence of an extended trochanteric osteotomy (ETO), Paprosky classification of femoral bone loss, stem length, or type of procedure performed (i.e. full revision vs conversion/primary).

CONCLUSION

Advances in implant design, improved trials, a range of stem lengths and diameters, and high offset options mitigate concerns of early subsidence and dislocation with monolithic TFTS, making them a valuable option for femoral revision. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(2):191-197.

Femoral revision for periprosthetic fracture in total hip arthroplasty

Periprosthetic fracture can create significant morbidity in the arthroplasty population. Patients with periprosthetic fracture have been shown to have worse outcomes and higher mortality than patients undergoing elective revision THA. In this review, we will focus on Vancouver B2 and B3 fractures. Both of these fracture types are associated with a loose primary prosthesis and warrant revision surgery. There are many different options for fixation choice of the femoral prosthesis, and preference has been evolving over the last 30 years. Currently, we use monoblock, tapered, fluted, titanium stems for all periprosthetic fracture revision surgeries.

Femoral Bone Remodeling in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty with Use of Modular Compared with Monoblock Tapered Fluted Titanium Stems: The Role of Stem Length and Stiffness

BACKGROUND

To our knowledge, no previous studies have compared periprosthetic bone remodeling around monoblock versus modular tapered fluted titanium stems with different stem length and thickness.

METHODS

A retrospective comparative study was performed on 139 consecutive total hip arthroplasties (THAs) revised with a tapered fluted modular titanium stem and 114 consecutive THAs revised with a tapered fluted monoblock titanium stem. The latest follow-up radiographs were compared with immediate postoperative radiographs to assess bone restoration in residual osteolytic areas, femoral stress-shielding, spot-welds, and radiolucent lines. Diameter and medullary canal filling of the 2 stems were measured.

RESULTS

More patients in the monoblock group demonstrated osseous restoration than in the modular group (p = 0.009), and the modular stem exerted more severe stress-shielding on the femur (p < 0.001). Stem tip spot-welds developed in 88.5% of modular stems compared with 47.4% of the monoblock stems (p < 0.001). Spot-welds developed in 38.8% of modular stems at the modular junction. Partial or circumferential radiolucent lines were observed at the proximal segment of 30.9% of modular stems, compared with 14.0% of monoblock stems (p = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with the longer and thinner monoblock stems, modular stems had less proximal osseous restoration in residual osteolytic areas and more severe femoral stress-shielding, stem tip spot-welds, and radiolucent lines around the stems, which were stiffer and had a shorter distal section. The stem diameter and stiffness (which were influenced by stem length, curvature, and modularity) determined bone remodeling patterns.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Influence of implant length and bone defect situation on primary stability after distal femoral replacement in vitro

BACKGROUND

Aseptic loosening is the major reason for failure of distal femoral replacement using current modular megaprostheses. Although the same stems are used for proximal and distal replacement, survival rates in clinical studies with distal reconstruction were lower within the same system compared to proximal reconstruction. We analyzed whether primary stability as presupposition for long-term fixation can be achieved with a current tapered stem design. Additionally, we hypothesized that stem length affects primary stability depending on bone defect situations.

METHODS

A modular tumor system (Megasystem-C®, Link GmbH, Hamburg, Germany) with two different tapered stems (100 and 160mm) was implanted in eight Sawbones® in two consecutively created defect situations (10 and 20cm proximal to knee joint level). Primary rotational stability was investigated by measuring relative micromotions between implant and bone to identify the main fixation areas and to characterize the fixation pattern.

RESULTS

The fixation differed between the two stem lengths and with respect to both defect situations; however in each case the main fixation area was located at or close to the femoral isthmus. Highest relative micromotions were measured with the 160-mm stem at the distal end within small bone defects and at the proximal end when defects were increased.

CONCLUSIONS

The analyzed design seemed to create sufficient primary stability along the main fixation areas of the implant. Based on these results and with respect to oncologic or potential revision situations, we suggest the use of the shorter stem to be more favorable in case of primary implant fixation.

What Is the Difference Between Modular and Nonmodular Tapered Fluted Titanium Stems in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Both modular and nonmodular tapered fluted titanium stems are used in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA), with follow-up showing good results for both stems. We aimed to determine whether there were any differences in clinical outcomes, survivorship, or frequency of complications.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 160 consecutive THAs (153 patients) revised with a tapered fluted modular titanium stem from 2002 to 2014 and 129 consecutive THAs (128 patients) revised with a tapered fluted nonmodular titanium stem between 2008 and 2014 was conducted. The patient's level of satisfaction, clinical assessment, and complications were examined. A Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis was performed with the endpoint defined as any reoperation due to septic/aseptic complications.

RESULTS

Mean duration of follow-up was longer in the modular group (6.3 years) than the nonmodular group (5.0 years; P = .003). No significant group differences were found in the postoperative Harris Hip Score, the level of overall satisfaction, the 8-year cumulative survival, the rate of infection, dislocation, or postoperative periprosthetic fractures. However, intraoperative fractures occurred significantly more frequently in the modular group (16.9%) than in the nonmodular group (7.0%; P = .011), and stem subsidence was significantly less in the modular group (0.95 mm) than in the nonmodular group (1.93 mm; P = .001). Two mechanical failures associated with the modular design occurred in the modular group.

CONCLUSION

Both modular and nonmodular tapered fluted titanium stems provide satisfactory midterm results in revision THA. Although tapered fluted modular stems are gaining in popularity in revision THA, tapered fluted nonmodular stems should not be disregarded as a viable alternative, especially for relatively straightforward cases.

Modified Extended Trochanteric Osteotomy for the Treatment of Vancouver B2/B3 Periprosthetic Fractures of the Femur

BACKGROUND

Femoral component revision is the treatment of choice for Vancouver type B2/B3 periprosthetic femur fractures (PFFs). The purpose of this study was to report the clinical outcome of revision total hip arthroplasty with the use of a modified extended trochanteric osteotomy (ETO) in PFF treatment.

METHODS

A total of 43 cases between 2000 and 2014 were analyzed. Clinical and radiographic evaluation was performed with a mean follow-up of 40 months. Patient survival after revision surgery, complications, radiographic outcomes, and quality of life and hip function were assessed.

RESULTS

Merle d'Aubignè and Postel score averaged 15, and mean postoperative Harris hip score was 70. Radiographic evaluation revealed that the ETO and fractures healed in all but 1 patient within 9 months. Component stability and apparent osseointegration were not coincident with healing of the osteotomy and fracture sites proximal to the inserted stem. Six patients (15%) developed postoperative complications, which included the following: 1 nonunion with progressive subsidence, 2 hip dislocations, 2 deep infections, and 1 breakage of the modular junction of the revision stem.

CONCLUSION

The modified ETO with a lateral approach to the hip for the treatment of PFF is compatible with fracture healing, a low dislocation rate, and good clinical results. However, component stability and apparent osseointegration are coincident with fracture healing only in the distal aspect of the inserted stem. Absence of proximal osseointegration might lead to poor osseous support resulting in inadequate fatigue strength at the junction of the dual modular revision stem.

The Mayo conservative hip: complication analysis and management of the first 41 cases performed at a University level 1 department

BACKGROUND

To prevent bone loss in hip arthroplasty, several short stem systems have been developed, including the Mayo conservative hip system. While there is a plethora of data confirming inherent advantages of these systems, only little is known about potential complications, especially when surgeons start to use these systems.

METHODS

In this study, we present a retrospective analysis of the patients' outcome, complications and the complication management of the first 41 Mayo conservative hips performed in 37 patients. For this reason, functional scores, radiographic analyses, peri- and postoperative complications were assessed at an average follow-up of 35 months.

RESULTS

The overall HHS improved from 61.2 pre-operatively to 85.6 post-operatively. The German Extra Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment Questionnaire (XSFMA-D) improved from 30.3 pre-operatively to 12.2 post-operatively. The most common complication was an intraoperative non-displaced fracture of the proximal femur observed in 5 cases (12.1%). Diabetes, higher BMI and older ages were shown to be risk factors for these intra-operative periprosthetic fractures (p < 0.01). Radiographic analysis revealed a good offset reconstruction in all cases.

CONCLUSION

In our series, a high complication rate with 12.1% of non-displaced proximal femoral fractures was observed using the Mayo conservative hip. This may be attributed to the flat learning curve of the system or the inherent patient characteristics of the presented cohort.

Tapered modular fluted titanium stems for femoral fixation in revision total knee arthroplasty

Consensus regarding femoral stem fixation options in revision total knee arthroplasty remains controversial. Tapered, modular, fluted titanium (TMFT) stems have an excellent track record in total hip arthroplasty for their ability to provide axial and rotational stability in situations of compromised host bone. We present 3 successfully treated cases in which the Food & Drug Administration granted permission to use custom TMFT stems in situations of failed femoral fixation in multiple revised knees. These stems hold promise to achieve stable fixation in revision total knee arthroplasty where host metadiaphyseal bone is deficient. Implant manufactures should consider dedicating future resources to create adapters that can link existing successful TMFT stems currently used in hip arthroplasty to revision total knee components when host bone is severely compromised.

Revision Hip Arthroplasty Using a Modular, Cementless Femoral Stem: Intermediate-Term Follow-Up

BACKGROUND

Modular femoral stem provides flexibility in femoral reconstruction, ensuring improved "fit and fill". However, there are risks of junction failure and corrosion, as well as cost concerns in the use of modular femoral stems.

METHODS

We reviewed prospectively-gathered clinical and radiographic data on revision total hip arthroplasties (THAs) performed from 2001-2007 using modular, cementless femoral component performed by the 2 senior authors. Patients with a minimum follow-up of 7 years were included in this study.

RESULTS

Sixty-four patients (68 hips) with a median age of 68 ± 14 years (range 40-92 years) at revision THA were included. The median follow-up was 11.0 ± 1.8 years (range 7-14). Harris hip score, femoral stem subsidence, and stem osseointegration were recorded. The Harris hip score improved from an average of 38.1-80.1 (P < .01). Five hips had one or more dislocations. Seven patients underwent reoperations, 3 of which did not involve the stem. Four stems required revision because of infection, recurrent dislocation, or suboptimal implant position. Survival rates for any reasons and revision for femoral stems were 90% and 94%, respectively, at the most recent follow-up. Four stems subsided more than 5 mm, but established stable osseointegration thereafter. Seven nonloose stems (10.2%) demonstrated radiolucent lines in Gruen zones 1 and 7. No complications regarding the modular junction were encountered.

CONCLUSION

Modular, cementless, extensively porous-coated femoral components have demonstrated intermediate-term clinical and radiographic success. Initial distal intramedullary fixation ensures stability, and proximal modularity further maximizes fit and fill.

Patient-reported outcomes after revision surgery compared to primary total hip arthroplasty

INTRODUCTION

Patients who undergo either primary or revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) mainly expect improvement in pain, function/activity and quality of life. The purpose of the study was to measure the degree of short-term and medium-term improvement and the differences in patient-reported outcome that can be expected in patients undergoing revision THA, compared to patients undergoing primary THA.

METHODS

In this study, the results of patient-reported outcome measurements were compared in 124 matched patients, who underwent revision surgery and primary THA between 01/2007 and 12/2009. Assessment was performed at short-term and medium-term follow-up and included the WOMAC score, the UCLA activity score and EuroQol scores.

RESULTS

6 months after revision THA, the mean total WOMAC score improved by 22.1 points, the UCLA activity score by 0.6 points and the EuroQol-Index by 0.2 points. After primary THA, the improvement was 41.4 points on the WOMAC, 1.1 points on the UCLA and 0.3 points on the EuroQol-Index. At medium-term follow-up, 3.6 years after revision surgery and 2.3 years after primary THA, patients undergoing revision THA showed significantly less overall improvement, as well as lower final outcome scores, than patients undergoing primary THA.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing revision arthroplasty, as well as patients undergoing primary THA, can expect major improvement in function, activity and quality of life postoperatively. However, overall level of improvement, as well as peak attainable outcome levels, are lower after revision surgery than after primary THA. Appropriate information for patients who undergo hip revision surgery is necessary in order to avoid unrealistic expectations and postoperative dissatisfaction.

Nonmodular Tapered Fluted Titanium Stems Osseointegrate Reliably at Short Term in Revision THAs

BACKGROUND

The ideal femoral component for revision THA is undecided. Cylindrical nonmodular stems have been associated with stress shielding, whereas junctional fractures have been reported with tapered fluted modular titanium stems. We have used a tapered fluted nonmodular titanium femoral component (Wagner Self-locking [SL] femoral stem) to mitigate this risk. This component has been used extensively in Europe by its designer surgeons, but to our knowledge, it has not been studied in North America. Added to this, the design of the component has changed since early reports.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We asked: (1) Does the Wagner SL stem have low rates of rerevision and other complications at a minimum 2 years after surgery? (2) Is the Wagner SL stem associated with high levels of patient function and pain relief at a minimum 2 years after surgery? (3) Does the Wagner SL stem have low rates of subsidence at a minimum 2 years after surgery? (4) Is the Wagner SL stem associated with proximal femoral bone remodeling at a minimum 2 years after surgery?

METHOD

Between May 2011 and December 2012, we performed 198 femoral revisions, of which 104 (53%) were performed using the Wagner SL femoral stem; during that period, our institution gradually shifted toward increasing use of these stems for all but the most severe revisions, in which modular fluted stems and proximal femoral replacements still are used on an occasional basis. Median followup in this retrospective study was 32 months (range, 24-46 months), and one patient was lost to followup before the 2-year minimum. The femoral deformities in this series were Paprosky Type I (10 hips), Paprosky Type II (26), Paprosky Type IIIA (52), Paprosky Type IIIB (nine), and Paprosky Type IV (two). Functional assessment was performed using the Oxford Hip Score (OHS), WOMAC, SF-12, and the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) activity score. All complications and cases of revision were documented. All patients had radiographs performed within 1 year of the latest followup. These were assessed by two surgeons for signs of proximal femoral bone remodeling and subsidence.

RESULTS

Complete preoperative scores were available for 98 patients (98 of 104; 94%). The mean OHS preoperatively and at final followup were 39 (SD, 15) and 87 (SD, 19), respectively (p < 0.001; mean difference, 48; 95% CI, 43-53). Average WOMAC scores were 44 (SD, 15) and 87 (SD, 20), respectively (p < 0.001; mean difference, 43; 95% CI, 38-48). At final followup, signs of restoration of proximal femoral bone stock was noted in 45 of 103 hips (44%). Six (six of 104; 6%) patients had subsidence of 10 mm to 15 mm. In the remainder (98 of 104; 94%), the mean subsidence was 2 mm (range, 0-9 mm). One revision was performed for loosening associated with infection.

CONCLUSIONS

The Wagner SL stem is a viable option for patients with Paprosky Types II and III defects undergoing revision THA. This component provides high levels of patient function with low revision rates and low rates of subsidence during the early postoperative phase. They provide a viable alternative to modular components for treatment of Types II and III defects without the risk of junctional fractures. They can be used for very selected Type IV defects, however this extent of bone loss is most easily addressed with other techniques such as a proximal femoral replacement.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, therapeutic study.