Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

High Survival of Modular Tapered Stems for Proximal Femoral Bone Defects at 5 to 10 Years Followup

  • Symposium: Papers Presented at the Annual Meetings of The Hip Society
  • Published:
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

Abstract

Background

Currently, the two most commonly used options for the revision of femoral components in North America are: cylindrical, nonmodular, cobalt-chromium stems and tapered, fluted, modular, titanium (TFMT) stems. Previous reports have cited high failure rates with cylindrical cobalt chrome stems in large femoral defects but the longer term survival of the fluted stems is unknown.

Questions/Purposes

We examined the 5- to 10-year survival of TFMT stems implanted for severe femoral defects.

Methods

We reviewed all 65 patients with severe proximal bone defects revised with the TMFT stem between January 2000 and 2006. Ten were lost to followup and seven were dead, leaving 48 patients for followup at 5 to 10 years (mean, 84 months; range, 60–120 months). All patients completed five quality-of-life (QOL) questionnaires. Radiographs were evaluated for loosening, subsidence, and preservation of proximal host bone stock.

Results

Implant survivorship was 90%. No patient underwent revision for either subsidence or loosening. Subsidence occurred in seven patients (average, 12.3 mm) but all achieved secondary stability. Five patients underwent revision as a result of fracture of the stem and all had the original standard stem design, which has since been modified. All five implant fractures occurred at the modular stem junction. Mean QOL outcomes were: WOMAC = 81 (pain), Oxford = 75, SF-12 = 54 (mental) and 38 (physical), UCLA Activity = 4, and satisfaction overall = 73.

Conclusions

Midterm survivorship of modular titanium stems in large femoral defects is high; however, ongoing surveillance of stem junctional fatigue life is required.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, therapeutic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1A–C
Fig. 2
Fig. 3A–B

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Amstutz HC, Thomas BJ, Jinnah R, Kim W, Grogan T, Yale C. Treatment of primary osteoarthritis of the hip: a comparison of total joint and surface replacement arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1984;66:228–241.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW. Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol. 1988;15:1833–1840.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Bohm P, Bischel O. Femoral revision with the Wagner SL revision stem: evaluation of one hundred and twenty-nine revision followed for a mean of 4.8 years. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83:1023–1031.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Busch CA, Charles MN, Haydon CM, Bourne RB, Rorabeck CH, MacDonald SJ, McCalden RW. Fractures of distally-fixed femoral stems after revision arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87:1333–1336.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A, Murray D. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996;78:185–190.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Della Valle CJ, Paprosky WG. Classification and an algorithmic approach to the reconstruction of femoral deficiency in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85:1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Engh CA, Massin P, Suthers KE. Roentgenographic assessment of the biologic fixation of porous-surfaced femoral components. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990;257:107–128.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Engh CA Jr, Ellis TJ, Koralewicz LM, McAuley JP, Engh CA Sr. Extensively porous-coated femoral revision for severe femoral bone loss: minimum 10-year follow-up. J Arthroplasty. 2002;17:955–960.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Garbuz DS, Toms A, Masri BA, Duncan CP. Improved outcome in femoral revision arthroplasty with tapered fluted modular titanium stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;453:199–202.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Garcia-Cimbrelo E, Garcia-Rey E, Cruz-Pardos A, Madero R. Stress-shielding of the proximal femur using an extensively porous-coated femoral component without allograft in revision surgery: a 5-to-17-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010;92:1363–1369.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Gozzard C, Blom A, Taylor A, Smith E, Learmonth I. A comparison of the reliability and validity of bone stock loss classification systems used for revision hip surgery. J Arthroplasty. 2003;18:638–642.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hamilton WG, Cashen DV, Ho H, Hopper RH Jr, Engh CA. Extensively porous-coated stems for femoral revision: a choice for all seasons. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22(Suppl 1):106–110.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kang MN, Huddleston JI, Hwang K, Imrie S, Goodman SB. Early outcome of a modular femoral component in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2008;23:220–225.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Katz JN, Phillips CB, Baron JA, Fossel AH, Mahomed NN, Barrett J, Lingard EA, Harris WH, Poss R, Lew RA, Guadagnoli E, Wright EA, Losina E. Association of hospital and surgeon volume of total hip replacement with functional status and satisfaction three years following surgery. Arthritis Rheum. 2003;48:560–569.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Koster G, Walde TA, Willert HG. Five-to-10-year results using a noncemented modular revision stem without bone grafting. J Arthroplasty. 2008;23:964–970.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Krishnamurthy AB, MacDonald SJ, Paprosky WG. 5-to-13-year follow-up study on cementless femoral components in revision surgery. J Arthroplasty. 1997;12:839–847.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Kwong LM, Miller AJ, Lubinus P. A modular distal fixation option for proximal bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty: a 2-to-6-year follow-up study. J Arthroplasty. 2003;18(Suppl 1):94–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lakstein D, Backstein D, Safir O, Kosashvilli Y, Gross AE. Revision total hip arthroplasty with a porous-coated modular stem: 5 to 10 years followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:1310–1315.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lakstein D, Eliaz N, Levi O, Backstein D, Kosashvili Y, Safir O, Gross AE. Fracture of cementless femoral stems at the mid-stem junction in modular revision hip arthroplasty systems. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93:57–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Losina E, Plerhoples T, Fossel AH, Mahomed NN, Barrett J, Creel AH, Wright EA, Katz JN. Offering patients the opportunity to choose their hospital for total knee replacement: impact on satisfaction with the surgery. Arthritis Rheum. 2005;53:646–652.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. McAuley JP, Engh CA Jr. Femoral fixation in the face of considerable bone loss: cylindrical and extensively coated femoral components. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;429:215–221.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. McInnis DP, Horne G, Devane PA. Femoral revision with a fluted, tapered, modular stem seventy patients followed for a mean of 3.9 years. J Arthroplasty. 2006;21:372–380.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Meek RM, Garbuz DS, Masri BA, Greidanus NV, Duncan CP. Intraoperative fracture of the femur in revision total hip arthroplasty with a diaphyseal fitting stem. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86:480–485.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Moreland JR, Bernstein ML. Femoral revision hip arthroplasty with uncemented, porous-coated stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1995;319:141–150.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Murphy SB, Rodriguez J. Revision total hip arthroplasty with proximal bone loss. J Arthroplasty. 2004;19(Suppl 1):115–119.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Nadaud MC, Griffin WL, Fehring TK, Bohannon Mason J, Tabor OB Jr, Odum S, Nussman DS. Cementless revision total hip arthroplasty without allograft in severe proximal femoral defects. J Arthroplasty. 2005;20:738–744.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Ovesen O, Emmeluth C, Hofbauer C, Overgaard S. Revision total hip arthroplasty using a modular tapered stem with distal fixation: good short-term results in 125 revisions. J Arthroplasty. 2010;25:348–354.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Paprosky WG, Greidanus NV, Antoniou J. Minimum 10-year-results of extensively porous-coated stems in revision hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999;369:230–242.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Park MS, Lee JH, Park JH, Ham DH, Rhee YK. A distal fluted, proximal modular femoral prosthesis in revision hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2010;25:932–938.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Park YS, Moon YW, Lim SJ. Revision total hip arthroplasty using a fluted and tapered modular distal fixation stem with and without extended trochanteric osteotomy. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22:993–999.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Restrepo C, Mashadi M, Parvizi J, Austin MS, Hozack WJ. Modular femoral stems for revision total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469:476–482.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Richards CJ, Duncan CP, Masri BA, Garbuz DS. Femoral revision hip arthroplasty: a comparison of two stem designs. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:491–496.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Rodriguez JA, Fada R, Murphy SB, Rasquinha VJ, Ranawat CS. Two-year to five-year follow-up of femoral defects in femoral revision treated with the Link MP modular stem. J Arthroplasty. 2009;24:751–758.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Sporer SM, Paprosky WG. Revision total hip arthroplasty: the limits of fully coated stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;417:203–209.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Sporer SM, Paprosky WG. Femoral fixation in the face of considerable bone loss: the use of modular stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;429:227–231.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Ware J Jr, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-item short-form health survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996;34:220–233.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Weeden SH, Paprosky WG. Minimal 11-year follow-up of extensively porous-coated stems in femoral revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2002;17(Suppl 1):134–137.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Weiss RJ, Beckman MO, Enocson A, Schmalholz A, Stark A. Minimum 5-year follow-up of a cementless, modular, tapered stem in hip revision arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2011;26:16–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Daphné Savoy for her assistance in the preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedics, University of British Columbia, Room 3114, 910 West 10th Avenue, Vancouver, British Columbia, V5Z 4E3, Canada

    Andrew P. Van Houwelingen MD, Clive P. Duncan MD, MSc, Bassam A. Masri MD, Nelson V. Greidanus MD, MPH & Donald S. Garbuz MD, MHSc

Authors
  1. Andrew P. Van Houwelingen MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Clive P. Duncan MD, MSc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bassam A. Masri MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nelson V. Greidanus MD, MPH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Donald S. Garbuz MD, MHSc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Donald S. Garbuz MD, MHSc.

Additional information

One of the authors (CPD) certifies that he has or may receive payments or benefits, in any one year, an amount in excess of $10,000, from a commercial entity (Zimmer, Inc, Warsaw, IN, USA) related to this work. One of the authors (BAM) certifies that he has or may receive payments or benefits, in any one year, an amount in excess of $10,000, from a commercial entity (Zimmer, Inc) related to this work. One of the authors (DSG) certifies that he has or may receive payments or benefits, in any one year, an amount in excess of $10,000, from a commercial entity (Zimmer, Inc) related to this work. The institution of one or more the authors (APVH, CPD, BAM, NVG, DSG) has received funding from Zimmer Inc.

All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request.

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research neither advocates nor endorses the use of any treatment, drug, or device. Readers are encouraged to always seek additional information, including FDA-approval status, of any drug or device prior to clinical use.

Each author certifies that his or her institution approved the human protocol for this investigation, that all investigations were conducted in conformity with ethical principles of research, and that informed consent for participation in the study was obtained.

About this article

Cite this article

Van Houwelingen, A.P., Duncan, C.P., Masri, B.A. et al. High Survival of Modular Tapered Stems for Proximal Femoral Bone Defects at 5 to 10 Years Followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471, 454–462 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-012-2552-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-012-2552-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation